That is my question to @TylerAbeoJordan. Does he/she support it? Because, if the answer is yes then @TylerAbeoJordan is already supporting a network that is immoral by his/her definition.
But I think you and @Aster covered well the fact that the question of morality is not black and white but more like on a spectrum. So it’s totally possible to support the network while not supporting PtP.
3 Likes
Case and point, I support the network but do not support PtP. My issue is in calling the networks morals into question. I for one would prefer to see a lot more “moral” people attracted to the network and not “immoral”. If we say that the network is immoral, we discourage the uneducated media gullible “moral” individuals from participating. This is my concern. I am not calling for a censorship of this debate, just trying to help @TylerAbeoJordan see that this may be causing more harm then good.
Edit: FYI - @TylerAbeoJordan my assumption is that you are sincere and that you are the moral type with a lion’s heart 
who wants to protect our children. You are exactly the type of person I want to see stay with this network and not go to a forked version. However, based on your arguments so far, I have to also assume that you do not support the network as it is which is by your definition immoral. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
1 Like
I agree with you. But not saying it won’t stop others from saying it. The moment you explain someone they could get rewarded to post content on Safe the issue will come up. People are not idiots, they can add 2 + 2. The question is whether or not it is going to be a problem for the adaption rate of Safe.
EDIT: Maybe the best way to handle this is to wait long enough before implementing it so people have a chance to appreciate the benefits of using Safe without having this interfere with it.
1 Like
Responding to OP because I just read it.
tl;dr If you have money in a bank, you profit from suffering, because banks actively support human rights violations. Your government knows, but it deliberately ignores it. Point: we have bigger worries than PtP.
Banks store your money, and making profit from it whether it’s from clean or dirty sources. And no, banks don’t try to stop evil people store their money there; in fact, they have systems in place to make that easy. Even better, governments (e.g. the U.S. government) don’t try to stop this, because if they did, the economy would come to a standstill without the billions that come from human trafficking, slavery, drugs, etc. Yes, there are some legal cases against banks when things visibly blow up by a nosy journalist, but then everything goes on as before. (I’m not just randomly making up stuff, I’m just summarizing the relevant parts of a DEFCON 19 speech, which a few simple Google searches quikly confirmed.)
EDIT: I think that part is skipped in the DEFCON speech; Thieme’s Black Hat speech (from archive.org, track 13, from about 1h00m30s; here’s the direct link to mp3) has the actual info, but also here’s a link to the pdf.
7 Likes
Thank you for bringing up this very important point however, the question still remains will Maidsafe just be another same old same old corrupt immoral system with the potential to do even more harm because it will be extremely difficult to regulate?
Are there “moral issues as regards to PtP and PtD”?
My answer to that based on my definition of what is moral is a resounding no.
If I’m understanding correctly that blindly rewarding content even if it is illegal such as child pornography is considered immoral, then the answer to this question for @TylerAbeoJordan and others who share this view is yes.
I do not see how this view will change unless the definition of what is moral with regards to the network is reevaluated. I am I foolish to think we can accomplish this here? I base my morals on the non aggression principle and I think it applies very well in this situation. Any thoughts?
85 comments and you still don’t understand. There’s more points than 2 but I’ll reiterate just two:
- Regulation that you call for is what makes it easy for banks to legally perform work that is formally illegal for the serfs (such as yourself). That’s what @Tim87 pointed out just one comment ago.
- In 80+ comments noone has come even close to showing why re-posting existing content from another site here would be immoral (which does not surprise because there seems to be a nearly universal agreement that posting other people’s content to SAFE is morally 1A).
So I ask: what is the problem? The network has the same rules for all. Use it or lose it.
The way I see it TAJ clumsily portrayed his values as universal moral principles and his attempt to trick us into some sort of guilt-driven conformance has failed. At least as far as I am concerned.
2 Likes
@janitor, that was my mistake for phrasing that 1st question as if it were @TylerAbeoJordan. To be fair, I don’t think @TylerAbeoJordan has been calling for regulation, those were just my thoughts because I think those buggers are bound to come.
@TylerAbeoJordan’s question is are there moral issues as regards to PtP and PtD. I could be wrong but I think @TylerAbeoJordan’s hope is to keep the regulators at bay by regulating ourselves and not paying content producers to begin with. I think it goes to far to say that if Maidsafe does PtD and PtP that this is immoral.
I concur with this point of view, however, my understanding of PtP (which may be wrong) is that it facillitates exactly this.
If content is popular/valued (demonstrated/measured/rewarded by way of Gets) then it is well rewarded;if however it is unpopular, then rewards will be low.
Yes, all content is rewarded, but not equally - the more valued, the more rewarded. If this is indeed the way it works, then it is both voluntary (users choose whether to “get” data or not) and the group has decided whether the content is valued or not. 
8 Likes
Maidsafe is trying to solve the problem that we as individuals are increasingly becoming victims of those who regulate. In the old days, they had to break down the door on somebody to see what he’s reading; now they can you just type a few words and there it is.
The SAFE network will be a safe haven from such intrusions. It is designed to withstand attempts to regulate it. It doesn’t make sense to call for the opposite: its basic premises go against that.
Will it be a safe haven for the baddies, too? Yes, and there’s nothing you can do against it. Science: physics, math, encryption, you name it: they don’t deal with morality, their laws apply to everybody, and we’ve been hating this since the beginning of the universe; bad things should only happen to the bad people, good things to the good people. And of course we’re always the good people 
Ye have heard that it hath been said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.” But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
There 
5 Likes
Oh….btw……the morality thing. As I see it, the only immoral act would be for Maidsafe to not have considered the issue, or thought that the potential abuse/rape of children was OK. I do not believe this to be the case though. Maidsafe being “amoral” would be an issue, however the Network being “amoral” is both OK and to my mind also not the right word. Would you call a car or a fridge or a gun “amoral” – why not “atheist” or “asexual” too while we’re at it?
The only immoral act, as I say, would be to not consider the consequences of one’s actions. An example of this would be say a gun manufacturer who chooses to not install a safety catch because its cheaper not to. If however, the safety catch renders the gun completely useless functionally in its larger purpose of “shooting things”, then it is justifiable.
Maidsafe have made a gun for “shooting” the 1% and giving Freedom, Security and Privacy to the masses…….this is the larger moral goal. You can’t stop dick heads driving cars or paedophiles using technology. In SafeNet’s case, the analogy is with the gun…….there’s no safety catch and the moral imperative is to fight back against the surveillance state and Corporatism and provide Freedom, Security and Privacy to the masses.
4 Likes
Ohhhh so you’re gonna bust out scriptures son??? 
How bout this one
“There is no one righteous, not even one" Romans 3:10
So let us not judge our “immoral” brothers and sisters and give everyone equal protection under the network.
4 Likes
Exactly! There can be no logical way to implement safety against safety that wouldn’t render the safe unsafe.
It sounds extremely silly, yet these demands for the impossible and illogical keep popping up in different forms on the forum.
2 Likes
word courts are more lenient towards inherent vice
2 Likes
wtf…been gone a few weeks and the forum’s degenerated into people quoting fairytales at each other
Wow… that’s the first bit of scripture I agree with logically. As being righteous means living a life that pleases God…and there’s no God… ergo there is nobody “righteous”…agreed.
1 Like
For this conversation, why don’t you just interpret it as something like: you can’t draw a line, because it’s different for everyone. “My jihad is your terrorism, your national security is my genocide. A 17yo female is a woman in my country, a child in yours. Beating up your wife in my country is okay, you go to jail in yours. Saying bad things about the Prophet in your country is a deadly sin, nobody gives crap in mine. Breastfeeding in public is everyday life in my country, indecent exposure in yours. Taking a picture of your nude toddler is family photography in your country, pedophilia in mine.” If you consider this, then it’s easy to realize we couldn’t come up with a network-wide “this is bad” standard even if there were technical means to enforce it.
5 Likes
I wish I could like more then once. That was so well put and if that message is not clear then I give up.
Because I see this line of giving anthropomorphic qualities to the Network by bringing in concepts of morality as irrelevant really.
All you are saying is that morality is subjective/relative (well, maybe but contentious). I’m saying morality doesn’t come into it at the Network level, so no need to explain how it is “amoral” anymore than to explain how it isn’t religious by using the word “atheist”.
1 Like
This is just a form of expression and we all have a right to express ourselves on this forum as we see fit (within the guidelines of course ). I’ve seen on this forum for example, people compare the network to a women and as a women I do not take offence. As an atheist, you say their is no God and as a christian I do not take offence. No one has to justify themselves here and I do not defend myself unless I fell personally attacked hence the non aggression principle.
I do take offense to this thread however, because I feel that it is an indirect attack on my moral belief. I do not consider myself immoral for participating and supporting this network as it stands and I do not want this labeled against me or the network. In other words, if I’m willing to financially support child pornographers than I am just as bad as they are. In essence, you have demonized me so that you can justify regulating and controlling my every move.
I do not see what Maidsafe is doing as supporting bad actors. On the contrary, this network is more moral to me then any system I know of today because it is supporting the good actors by leveling out the playing field as it should be.
If you liked the scripture [quote=“Safety1st, post:92, topic:7791”]
“There is no one righteous, not even one" Romans 3:10
[/quote]
Then check this one out:
“He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Matthew 5:45
…and isn’t that exactly what Maidsafe does with PtF, PtD and PtP?
1 Like
…a woman in Safenet stockings…phwoar!
3 Likes