It still is going from free content (no log in & no pay) into a free for content of less worth and charitable + login&pay for any content worth something. In other words this will divide those who have the resources and those who don’t by dividing the data into free and login&pay.
It still discriminates the poorer people. Poorer in money &/or poorer in powerful enough computing/bandwidth. This is something that seems to be against one of the design goals of the SAFE network.
Also web pages can still exist on the current web yet access SAFE content if the plugin is installed. But if some data has to be paid for then some can and some cannot.
The “All For everyone” becomes “All For those who have resources and the leftovers for those who do not” Leftover can be tasty or not.
BTW: some parts of Australia do not have the capabilities (speed&bandwidth) to support vaults, so any coins have to be paid for and thus the pay wall becomes very significant, even if $0.00001 per MB. Oh yes those parts without ability to run vaults are not necessary poor money wise areas.
Wrong. The network is the best way, and again, the simple solution is the best.
It’s actually super simple. With SAFE you always own your own content.
If another site shepherds it, that’s all gravy, but it should be simple for them to access your public content and use that as opposed to uploading it. So with baked in network rewards, it’s actually much much much simpler and automatically fairer for users creating content that appears on SAFEtube, or another blog or whatever. There’s no need for the app to do any complicated payments to CC, cos it’s done by the network. (unless the app is charging… then that’s another question).
And sure a blog could copy the content. but why would they? With SAFE it’s trivial to reference data that already exists and use it how you like. If you upload it, no matter what app accesses it, you GET rewarded.
Supply and demand will solve this through the networks farming algorithms. All farmers, big or small, will be payed nearly equally plus or minus %20. The kid in Kenya with his cellphone might not be able to make a living farming Safecoin, but he will be able to earn enough Safecoin to browse quality content.
When monthly quotas are high enough. Some people only have 200MB per month on their mobile plans in rural AU. Most are better at 500MB and higher. But to run a vault it is expected that one would need a lot more. 500MB is only 500 chunks. No good for vaults and remember that vaults also cache. Even high cost mobile plans are 2-4GB per month. Doubtful vaults on mobile plans in Australia will be possible for the next few years.
As to earning enough safe coin, if is 100 gets to succeed in a safecoin then one would need at least 100 MB upload per coin. But if could be more than 100 GETs per successful reward attempt. While this will still be enough to put ones content to SAFE, but if one also has to use coin for paywalled content then people are even MORE limited.
There is know way to know this or argue it until the network goes live. The algorithms are not even written yet. But, we do know that the farming rate will flex with supply and demand. To solve the bandwidth issue maybe the farming rate should take into account bandwidth as well.
The 1st evolution of the algorithms are in the RFC for safecoin and its pretty obvious that it will take a number of GETs for a coin. See the RFC for safecoin.
Absolutely! On the current net, this is discouraged as leaching, but on safe net, there is no personal hosting cost - there is just a cost born to the network itself for serving the data.
The choice to use that feature is at the discretion of the content provider. The network doesn’t force people to use it - it is only enabled when the content provider dictates it.
Therefore, the content provider is the one doing the discriminating. The network is just respecting their wishes.
In electronics (& programs) a discriminating circuit is one where the discriminating is built into the circuit (or program) and the parameters are adjusted for the desired result.
So the definition is that this proposal makes SAFE content reading a discriminating system with parameters of discriminating set on a content by content basis.
Yes it is the content uploader who sets the discrimination parameters for their content, but that doesn’t stop it being a discrimination design.
But if that is what is wanted then discrimination is ok, but it does go against the SAFE design principle mentioned above by David.
In others words the discrimination mechanism is built in and set by the user. 0 or more payment needed
@goindeep has explained why, for profit (and not just blogs of course). However, I agree that doesn’t rule out this or other things being designed to offer alternatives. Both can coexist, but the better the alternatives we offer, the more likely they will be chosen, particularly by smaller, independent producers. In the spirit of decentralization, I expect most of the community can support that goal, even if we disagree on how to encourage it.
I have no problem with this definition. Cinemas discriminate against people who don’t wish to pay to see a movie too. It is essential for free trade/association.
Yes, but reading (access) discrimination is contrary to one of the SAFE design principles.
But to make it worse
Imagine this situations that will be occurring. (new proposal in light of current proposed model) I have another situation that I might post as well
This situation illustrate the situation of more hoops to jump through to use when viewing web pages from the normal web with some content on SAFE
A good percentage of content is being stored on SAFE
Normal Web pages now access content on SAFE (using plugin)
The Masses are not yet interested in SAFE for storage
Current
The person only has to install the plugin and client (can be packaged together)
Simple “click button on web page & agree to run” in order to allow access to SAFE content on their web page
No need for credentials to be entered when reading content
Proposed
Do the procedure as per current model (download/install plugin&client)
set up an account
Buy a SAFE coin from somewhere
Join an exchange
Buy a SAFEcoin which may require buying BTC first
Under 18 year olds without credit card have to buy with cash
Hours or days later they have their SAFE coin to activate their account
Actually they need at least 2 coins so if they did not realise a pay wall existed for some of the content then another period of time
Continue with setting up their account
They now need to record/remember their creditientials
Remember this is just to view a web page with just one of the images/text requiring the minimum of one unit of payment. It is also a good chance that the one item is the crux of the web page since only worthwhile content to be paid for would be used on an otherwise free content web page.
Next time they have to enter their credentials to access the ordinary looking web page. And hope they have coins left or they will have to buy more coins, with the delay associated with that.
So tell me, even if this was 1 in 5 web pages on the normal web that had safe content in the page (more likely most), which proposal will sit well with the masses?
Second situation. Basically an extension to the first, but could also be a SAFE based web page.
This situation illustrates the hurdles from just viewing a web page, even when they have client and coins available
Assume the person has the client & safe coins already. That may or may not be a hurdle too much for many of the masses, so we are considering those who thought the hassle was worth it and those who use SAFE.
The person is accessing a web page that has images and text blocks from various places on SAFE
The page starts loading
Bang the 3rd image needs to be paid for, interrupt so credentials can be entered and daily amount set aside for content
The user is informed it will cost 1 unit, and asked to agree
the 4th block of text requires payment
the user is informed it will cost 2 units and asked to agree
the 7th image requires payment. The image is important, its a diagram of some process.
the user is informed it will cost 50 units and asked to agree
and so on for another 10 items needing paying. Say 75 units now
the user is starting to wonder if its worth it, but decides in for a penny in for a pound.
The page continues to the next as too much for one page
similar occurs on this page and the user is up to 250 units of payment.
Now if the user decides to go back to first page then they may need to pay for some or all that page’s content again depending on the caching parameters set by the web page (look this up), also even if caching is allowed they might not have a large enough cache for those 5 MB diagrams (think phone/pad)
Then the user goes to the third page to find something important (the solution perhaps)
1st image cost 150 units, he clicks agree to pay
then after another 100 units required to pay he decides enough is enough and exits that page.
Yes this will not happen for every page since some web pages will exist that are totally free
And even if you automate the agree to pay, their has to be a limit and each time that limit is reached the user has to transfer more into that to continue. This is another hurdle to the use of SAFE for “web” surfing
Honestly how much GOOD content will not have to be paid for?
How much content will be copied and payment set to zero, just so people can have GOOD web pages that people will actually visit?
Compared to the current model where content is Safe And Accessible to Everyone and maybe the proposed “content providers are paid by the system and/or tipping” model.
ummmm call me old fashioned but I’d go for the model where everyone can access normal web pages that have SAFE content in them.
Let a paywalled web site be just that you pay to enter, not one where you get hit again and again after it has started loading and if auto set then you don’t know how much it cost you
I asked the question how you manage it all and you said I am wrong but never answered the question how you would manage it all.
It’s fine to be opinionated but prove your point with facts and examples preferably replicable ones because as it stands there is no system on the planet in all time that works the way your opinion states this could work.
Then the website owner start to realize something, theres not a lot of visitors to his webpage, perharps maybe it’s because its content is too expansive, or his website is a pain to navigate. So he decide to change something. Now all pictures are available for free as a thumbnail, in the little corner of each images theres a cost in Safecoin and he add a voting system where users can show their appreciation and comment of the image. When you click on the thumbnail you see a bigger version of the file, not HD though just bigger. Then, there’s a nice HD button that glows beneath it. This is the version that cost Safecoins.
With its new design, the website gains in popularity, people enjoy the new experience and some of them pays a bit of safecoins to get the HD version of the file to put as a wallpaper. With this, the owner starts to add content from other artist, he could download their images and take all the profit but he is not an asshole and he is trying to build a community, so instead, he propose to other artist to reference their work, adding content to his and growing Is website and his community at the same time.
Still hurdles to jump over. More work for the site owner.
Will the content providers agree to their content being made a thumbnail?
Still not free and accessible for ALL. Just because there are plenty of people with funds to spare does not mean the majority (or everyone) has the funds for this. That is why one of the design principles was to NOT discriminate on reading content.
This would certainly help to reduce the hurdle. Agreed. Realistically how many will change it to this? They don’t care for the ones (majority of the masses) who don’t want to pay, they only want the payers to visit, the others are dead wood. Thats why they use pay for content in the first place. Thumbnails are only used to entice payers.
Certainly would help the poorer in 1st world countries. But for the poorer in other countries I personally still see it as only partly reducing the high wall when the current model has no wall.
I know, I’m challenging it because I think the end result could be even better for a lot of non-users who have value to bring to the network. Don’t forget that you already need Safecoins to have a voice on the network so for non-peers( as this is a peer-to-peer network and people who do not participate are not peers) the network as it is doesn’t have much to offer them compare to the normal web.
So you have two choices. Cater to non-peers to make the network attractive to them compare to the normal web. Or, find other ways to convert them into valuable peers. Of course both are not mutually exclusive but I prefer the second choice and this what this proposal is about.