Please give examples of things I’m touching on that can go in circles. If you want to end this thread by not wanting to further discuss this critical issue, then that is your choice. I think the readers are intelligent enough where they can sift out and decide for themselves what is valuable and what is not.
3 Likes
Could be a fake but plenty of real Kaiser Sozeh’s here:
And a few John’s and Jane’s who believe this legal scenario or something similar will play out rather quickly say they will do this: Worst case is if SAFE launches with PtD and/or PtP, they can dump their MAIDsafe to keep clear of any future repercussions and wait for the fork without PtD and PtP to happen. Judging by how many posts there have been on this issue (functionally, legally, and morally), there’s a high probably a fork will happen. If others want to keep their newly converted safecoin and think they are immune to arrest, so be it. But others won’t be taking that chance. They’ll just use the profits from MAIDsafe to buy safecoin 2.0.
We can then see who is right. This is all an experiment right? So no need to worry about the issue anymore. No one cares about the price of safecoin anyway – it all recycles back. The network can survive without farmers – there’s been plenty of discussion about that. FBI director Comey, Senators Charles Schumer and Joe Manchin, and lawyers won’t use this silly baseless contract argument – there’s no precedent and it’s just like Tor. Conclusion? This is all FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD. Don’t believe a word of it. End of discussion so let’s all move on.
EDIT: If it’s not clear to all, I am being facetious with the above paragraph.
2 Likes
Good riddance! They will either come back when they realize the flaws of a fork or remain ignorant of the dangers of moral hedging. First it’s this then its that. It’ll take a while (perhaps even a decade) but they’ll eventually end up where they started. I don’t much care for PtP/PtD (though it could maximize content growth) but I understand the domino effect moral systems can have. Neutrality being the only cure.
2 Likes
Hey folks, just for the record I had these exact conversations 2 years ago. Go back to 2014 and in 2015 and you’ll see I’ve outlined these same concerns and arguments. Some of these concerns the developers listened to, as we will have group accounts, but other concerns such as the PR quagmire have not be listened to.
I support the strategic intentions of SAFE Network but I do not know if the tactics will ultimately result in achieving the intended goal. In a way I think the lack of democratic control of the SAFE Network can result in it being less flexible, less able to adapt to political attacks from the outside, and this could ultimately prevent mainstream adoption much in the same way that the whole block size issue is hampering Bitcoin.
I do know David intends to put in compute, voting, and a bunch of other features, but the question will be whether or not SAFE Network will be attacked before it can get out of the crib. In essence the SAFE Network is just a baby, and many of the community members are going to be rational, mature, responsible, and this could effect the early perceptions of the network.
Forks are ultimately a good thing as it could be the one way to guarantee that the technology will survive. The technology itself is more important than Maidsafe. The argument or debate already has started politically between the FBI and Apple which indirectly is about SAFE Network vs FBI. The FBI is going to attack SAFE Network, as will the FSB, and all the other security services, so expect that.
At the same time the debate is important to have because a line has to be drawn as to what priorities we want to set. No it is not acceptable to just let many thousands or millions or billions die in mass attacks. At the same time, do we want to provide government with tools to eventually scan people’s brains to extract data, to track people inside their house in the Internet of Things era through their devices? We have to determine if there should be a line now and where.
SAFE Network in the larger context could be seen as part of the debate, part of the negotiation, but in the end SAFE Network has to be self governable, or we will eventually see forks. Paying the producers of content is politically tenuous, and benefits do not outweigh the risks of blind transfer of wealth. On the other hand if you have a curation mechanism which I’ve discussed in the past then you can let the participants direct the flow via micropayments or other means to the curated content.
Terrorists, child pornographers, snuff film makers, these sorts of people are going to exist whether or not SAFE Network exists. There already are anonymous networks where files and data can be uploaded whether or not SAFE Network exists. The difference is those networks do not reward people who produce. Pay the producer removes neutrality from SAFE Network and is a bad idea.
Pay the developer is different but even in that case I think the process should be based on a curation model. Apps which have a high enough rating from actual users should be paid. Apps which do not have high ratings should be considered unwanted, trash, and why pay developers to make apps which endanger SAFE Network or which 99.9% of everyone doesn’t support?
Curation is the answer. You can have curation on the app level without violating neutrality below. If there is a vote then I vote to scrap PtP but I support a curated PtD. Without reviews there is no way to determine whether an app is malware, a ransom app or something useful and why sponsor anything which isn’t worthy?
1 Like
You can have PtD and PtP if there is curation! If there is no curation that is where you have problems. Reddit is curated and if the top threads get paid then you can pay the producer in that context. If you pay everyone by the amount of views, or attention or accesses, that is the source of the problem and that is what we definitely don’t want to do.
That would directly fuel stuff which no one in their right mind would want to fuel, and leave no real way to direct the flow of resources toward the content or the apps people actually appreciate. Put in curation first before any PtD or PtP. The first app should be the curation app for the app stores.
PtP does not remove neutrality from the network at all. Everyone gets paid for uploading content equally. The network has no idea what that content is and remains neutral. In fact your own objection to PtP seems to stem from the fact that it does treat everyone equally.
Curration wouldn’t mean less pedophiles, terrorists or hackers. It would simply mean like attracts like. Morality and value is entirely subjective. Why not have both PtP and curation since PtP relies on downloads. The more downloads, GETs something the more it’s worth, the less downloads the less it’s worth.
Then let them create forks. SAFE is not and should not be a government or tribe. It’s a tool, an element, it’s the internet. SAFE is not what has choice, we are.
2 Likes
There is a difference between network neutrality and content neutrality. There is no such thing as content neutrality and no reason to want it. Who would want to pay for all content? Why not pay for spam too? Curation would only reward the content which is voted up and that would ultimately solve the problem. Rewarding content without curation of content is irresponsible and no different from paying for virus producers to put trojans in closed source software rather than paying for clean open source software.
Network neutrality is on a different layer entirely. It doesn’t see content. But to pay for production of content is to provide an incentive to produce content and if it’s not content you want produced then you shouldn’t be forced to provide an incentive for that because it has nothing to do with the functioning of SAFE Network on the fundamental layer.
So if we think of PtP as a tax? Do you want to pay a tax to support services you don’t use? Should the community pay a tax to support the creation of snuff films and ISIS propaganda? I’m sure some people wouldn’t mind paying but 99% of people don’t want to pay for that.
2 Likes
Exactly. I’m perfectly fine with curation. If the network really likes something then maybe it’s not really objectionable, who am I to judge? But to pay all producers willy nilly without any care for quality? I don’t see why that makes sense.
1 Like
Well it makes sense because all the network cares about is one is uploading to the network and producing content. What makes “Good” or “Bad” content is a subjective human thing and needs to be handled at the app level. As far as the network is concerned the more content uploaded and the more gets received the healtheir the network because this encourages network activity.
Then why have PtP at all? It takes away from neutrality of the network for no good reason. If producers want to get paid they should accept being reviewed and curated otherwise what are you paying for?
Paying 100% of all producers by default is treating all content as equal and creating a tax subsidy to pay for it? On one hand I understand why you might need a subsidy but I don’t think you can tax the network without representing the taxpayers.
Without curation we do not know the will or subjective preferences of the taxpayers. Network activity should not be encouraged. Value is what you want to produce not just “activity”. In producing value, because value is subjective you require curation to know what the network values at any given moment. So reward based on popular opinion but to all producers equally because all content is not equal.
1 Like
How? How does it take away from neutrality? Prove it.
PtP != taxation. No money is taken from the user’s wallet. And devaluation of funds is not an argument either as the network adjusts farming rates and the value of data accordingly. It all balances out.
On the network layer the only thing that matters is security and freedom. You must use Safecoin to pay farmers who offer storage. Farmers must be given an incentive and this much is fully understood.
Producers of content do not need to be given an incentive by the network layer. They can be given incentives on the app layer using micropayments. There is simply no need for PtP to exist.
PtP adds risks and does nothing to enhance the UX. PtP is a tax because those Safecoins have to come from somewhere don’t they? Why do you feel all content no matter what it is has to be rewarded if you admit the value is subjective?
1 Like
PtD or PtP can exist with curation. When you have no curation then you could be funding some app which could be something no one wants funded. If the network could vote on the flow of funds then you solve the problem.
So what not let the network vote? It works for Bitshares and for other DAOs. Otherwise you don’t have any control over the evolution of SAFE Network as the owners of it.
Producing content encourages network usage. Producing popular content means more GETS for farmers. The network needs popular content to thrive. Therefore it’s in the network’s best interests to reward content producers.
It encourages content production. The burden of cost is on the network not the users. Please prove your statement.
They aren’t being taken from user’s wallets and the network has a right to do what it likes with it’s own money. The network is issuing the safecoin directly. It isn’t being taken from the users. Therefore it isn’t being stolen from anyone. Therefore it is not a tax.
Because all value is subjective, all content is of value to someone, therefore all content should be rewarded. Moreover all content is of value to the network.
The network does not have free will. Do you let your camp fire vote? Do you let your hammer vote? Do you let your car vote?
1 Like
It should not be at the network layer. The network layer should not encourage that. The network layer should have an app layer on top of it and let the app developers encourage that with the curation model built in, or voting.
PtP is nothing more than a tax on the network and also a PR burden. It tries to solve a problem which could better be solved on the app layer.
It’s not about what someone might find useful. It’s about preference aggregation and what the network as a whole deems useful. It’s not adapting to the preferences of the network as a whole to just throw content at people or to subsidize just any kind of content without any care for quality. When you do that you will get low quality content, much of which perhaps no one will like.
Because it’s going to be subsidized whether the network appreciates it or not will introduce vulnerabilities into the network and also waste subsidizes on trashy content or unappreciated content which could go to much more appreciated and valued content. I just don’t think it’s smart to do any kind of rewarding scheme for content without curation built in.
It’s like subscribing to a book club to be able to have access to a lot of unknown books vs having Amazon. People want Amazon because it learns their preferences, it recommends new books, it’s got ratings, it’s curated, and people can choose which book to buy or which to leave on the shelf.
1 Like
Why? What is your reasoning?
Content people don’t like doesn’t get ranked high in downloads. People tend not to repeatedly download low quality stuff.
The network doesn’t know and doesn’t care about what is “trashy” or “inappropriate” those are subjective human labels. Moreover there is no reason that curation cannot be included as well.
You’re creating a false dichotomy here. There’s no reason you can’t have both. Moreover people seem to agree supporting content creators is a good thing. What they disagree with is how to get the funds.
It doesn’t. The network pays them based on how much the file is downloaded. You get a lot of downloads you’re paid more, less downloads = less pay. At farming rate/10. Haven’t you done the math?
Why? What is your reasoning?
The network has no preferences to violate. I think you’re confusing the network with the collective preferences of the user base.
Welcome to freedom! Where everyone has the same access and the same freedoms. You can’t claim to be for freedom, privacy and security for all and then start whining about PR when someone who likes something you don’t enjoys the same freedoms you do. it is none of the network’s business what any given user likes or dislikes. Read up on the morality of PtP thread, we’ve been over this.
I’ve got no problem with a curation system though you still have to prove PtP is bad.
And I believe this guy has a point. No the network can’t tell what any of the content is which is precisely my point.
1 Like
It’s a tax to provide a subsidy which most people don’t seem to want. If most people don’t want it why provide it when it’s unnecessary? If you want to make the network popular then curation is how you do it. You have to give each person access to exactly the curated high quality content they want and subsidize the production of what most people want.
You should not subsidize everything equally. In addition the network layer shouldn’t subsidize content at all. If there isn’t any content then let some app developer solve it by creating a curation app.
1 Like
Anything which could violate the preferences of the network will be deemed unethical or unappreciated. Meaning if the network for example does not like snuff films, but you’re subsidizing snuff films, it creates a PR nightmare because it makes SAFE Network look like snuff film machine because it blindly subsidized it.
So now there would be less people interested in SAFE Network just because of this? The lack of curation is the problem. People can tolerate a lot of bullshit, a lot of crap, as long as the network over time is optimizing to produce value. When it’s not doing that then the subsidies might exist but its just going to be exploited for profit and quality of content will not matter if there aren’t any ratings.
These are just my opinions but I think PtP in particular cannot work without curation of that which is produced. I would also say developers shouldn’t get paid unless they produce apps which get used a lot and which get a high rating. At least when your’e talking about code you can claim free speech but you don’t have the same ability when you talk about content.
1 Like
I thought there was supposed to be no way to know who’s looking at what or how much anything is viewed or used at the network layer
2 Likes
I don’t know why we would put PtP or PtD at the network layer. Why not just make an app for both of these functions? The funding could come from the network layer sure but the actual curation is what matters.
How is the flow of these resources going to be determined? In the end you need humans who test apps, you need to give humans the incentive to rate apps either by paying them or by some other means but you need that. You also need to curate content and you can’t just throw unwanted content at people or worse force people to subsidize unknown unwanted content.
If the network is doing it then adding curation would make the subsidization much more efficient so that there is better quality content and apps.
1 Like