Yay @Al_Kafir is back! I thought you had died or something. And yeah whether it’s a case of moral subjectivity like @Tim87 said here:
or just perceiving the network as a tool like @Al_Kafir said here:
It pretty much all amounts to the same thing. The morality of the network is a non issue. The only thing the network should worry about is providing Security, privacy and freedom for everyone.
We share that belief. As I already said:
Morality is outside the domains of computer software, so I don’t believe it should try to solve moral issues; it can’t, and people already know that, as any stereotypical utopian nightmare movie scenario will quickly demonstrate it (you know, the dream society where they solved everything by “science,” and now the hero(ine) needs to realize how oppressive it all is, and then break the system for everybody’s great delight.)
As for the moral ramblings, please forgive me for that. I do wish people would realized how little universal their personal beliefs are. I do have my own, I wish everybody shared them, and I do want to fight for a select few. Yes, I do think morality isn’t the business of this system, but not everybody thinks like this. So, I’m trying to show that even if censorship was possible, agreeing on what to censor, is not. If not for their technical impossibility, for at least their logical impossibility, these demands for censorship should stop. “Please” 
Well, that’s what it’s designed for, so I can’t understand why these requests are coming up complaining it would be doing it too well… 
This is absolutely WRONG. The network provides tools that enable a new economy. ECONOMIC DECISIONS ARE BASED IN MORAL PRECEPTS.
The network we are building is akin to a government – just one that is managed by pre-determined equations instead of elected officials. Governments adjust and develop economies. PtP is clearly a political animal in the development of the Safenet zoo of equations … This zoo/government is being built upon deep-seated moral views.
Saying it isn’t so, is also politics … it is an effort to get people to sacrifice their moral views by telling us that our views aren’t based on anything important to us … such a statement is a slap in the face to anyone with a brain - it’s utterly insulting.
Makes no sense … the network as it stands has no PtP. We are here making these comments in an effort to work out if there is support for it.
You seem to want debate to go away … but who then informs the decision?
Sorry, economics do not make the decisions, a person makes the decision. So if the person have zero morals then the decision is not based in moral precepts. Similarly if an algorithm uses the logic that someone quoted from scripture that the sun rises on the evil and the good then the sun is not making a moral decision or a decision based in moral precepts but based on physics.
So SAFE is making decisions based on mathematical precepts (its algorithm) that was written to ignore the things that morality is based on, and based it on no discrimination, just as the sun does not discriminate.
Ha you reminded of a funny statement that someone mentioned to me.
Did the soldier in the “SS” look at his badge with the skull and crossbones and think, am I really the good guy?
How many people really think they are the “bad” guy? No matter how good or evil they are.
OFF TOPIC but clarify … I’ve seen a lot of misinterpretations of what child pornography is here. I encourage people to look up the legal definition.
It goes something like this: Taking photos or video of children engaged in sexual acts.
It is not simply nude photos. Nude photos are not pornographic in most any jurisdiction of any state in the world … UNLESS there is a sexual act involved.
What is a sexual act? There is a line between the non-sexual and sexual … In the case of child pornography the prosecutor will consider what they think the general public (a jury) will think about ‘evidence’ (porn) and then decide whether they should press charges – at least that’s how it would work under most western legal jurisdictions.
‘economic decisions’ means decisions made by people as regards their values (including moral values) … we are deciding in this forum whether PtP is a valid concept for SafeNet … we are NOW making the economic decision for all those who will use SAFEnet by determining what equations will go into play.
We are doing this … right now by debating the topic.
Be careful, yes in the USA they have to prove that, and prove that it was a child. Due in part to the constitution amendments interpretation from what I’ve been told.
But in many other western countries it is not clear cut, and nudity may or may not be considered CSA material even if there is clearly no sexual activity, or intent of activity with the child. In some cases a clothed family photo found “near” bedroom photos of husband/wife can land the person in jail.
That is what I am hoping to do yes … but as for PtP and PtD NOT being immoral … speak for yourself please. They are immoral to me.
I don’t need to be careful, I don’t collect or share nude photos. IMO, in some western countries the laws are looser than in the US.
Again, people should do their own research; but generally speaking non-sexual nudes are not considered pornographic.
Careful of claims that most western countries are like your USA ones.
With exceptions that are non-trivial in some western places. But yes generally speaking.
But you claim we have to base it in moral precepts, in big bold printing too. But the proposal is to not base it in moral precepts but in other precepts. And you originally contended that it could create moral issues. But it in itself is not written based on moral precepts.
Just like the sun rising can cause moral issues, the criminal can see what he is doing, or hide when the sun goes done, but the sun’s motion is not based in moral precepts
It is possible to have decisions NOT based in moral precepts.
I think this is wrong. Firstly a get isn’t a like. Someone may get a file that appears to be some photos of lolcats, but turns out to be photos of someone’s garbage. Now they aren’t likely to share that link, so it’s not going to get lots of gets … but it may collect a few.
More importantly to me is that I didn’t get to choose who I reward - that decision is being made arbitrarily for me by the network regardless of whether I enjoyed the content I ‘got’ or not. This choice/decision is being taken from me … I personally value this ability and I don’t want it taken from me. For the MAIDSAFE community to tell me that I’m not ‘good’ enough to make this decision for myself is a moral economic decision by the community to emplace an equation to do the task in my stead. And I don’t like this moral decision, it runs counter to my moral views on freedom of choice.
We are basing it on moral precepts. doing it or not doing it, we bias the network (with equations of economic consequence) in some way based on what we feel is a moral ‘good’.
You say that without knowledge or proof.
In fact the algorithm itself speaks otherwise.
Not every decision is based on some moral.
To claim that is to turn everything into a moral decision, including physics, the sun, and so on. True morals is a human construct to explain why we do things, but we often do things not based on the normally accepted definition of morality.
It seems you are missing the point entirely.
to quote myself:
You are implying that the equations that make up PtP are a moral good, which is apparently why you argue in their favor … so I will reflect your statement back at you:
You say that without knowledge or proof.
Physics doesn’t make decisions, people do. You keep conflating the equations of the network with physics … ignoring the fact that people make the equations.
People didn’t make the sun … but we are making Safenet.
Wow, nice attempt. Seriously you are turning this into everything is a moral decision so even saying anything is a moral decision, get the idea, once you do that you can say everything is a moral decision and we cannot get out of it, even responding, even physics becomes morals, then maths becomes morals, then I find myself unable to see the forest for everything is morals.
NO, we make decisions based on morals, or based on other precepts. Making everything a decision of morals, makes a mockery of morals.