Again, this argument (“everything is the same”, “it’s not us but the network”) is absolutely valid in a world where we can’t make the rules. True, the network knows nothing about ownership. But we, who make the network, do, and that’s where this argument becomes invalid.
Here’s how it goes:
Idea: PtP
Rationale: we want to encourage the sharing of good content
If implemented: anybody can expect monetary reward for sharing whatever they want, regardless of if it is somebody else’s property; we know: the network handles everything and everybody the same, so there’s no other way to do it
Problem: in the real world, when somebody makes something, sometimes they want to make money by sharing it; it bothers them if random people share it for money more than if random people share it for free (assumption)
You have to consciously ignore this simple train of thought to think that you can hide behind “oh but the network.” Yes, the network is content agnostic, user agnostic, everything agnostic. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to consider the consequences before including something among its laws.
Are you actually asking why the OP did not explain the moral problem around expecting profit in return of sharing material about people hurting others? Or am I misunderstanding something?
There is no actual moral issue regarding any content itself. Moral issues come into play with the production and use, when produced by exploitation and used for evil purposes. Moral issues that pertain to this kind of personal use are just that, moral issues that can’t be legislated against because there is no way to enfroce it. Production of content on the other hand should be regulated, because capital interests always work against our interests, however what is content production in the network is not really content production but the beginning of storage for us. From the relevant standpoint of the network itself, however, it is exactly content creation, and should be regulated. Because there is a subject that profits from creating content for the network, this creation should be regulated by the network, but it can’t be as it is indifferent to content as software, but the network isn’t just software, its also people that run it, its users, so the only way to do this is by having a ranking system that somehow escapes the interests of capital, or it serves no purpose at all.
The question here is not whether or not to have a content creation reputation system, but wheter such a system can properly function.
Say you are a popular content creator for the network, some other guy that is your direct competitor is also, how do we prevent that one or the other is banned because the other guy’s users give him bad reputation. I think this problem has a solution, by skewing the reputation system in a way that doesnt’ show the number of votes but provides a total balance, and having this balance score have a range form 0 to 100%, distributed by a bell curve where only the ones that are at the bottom gets banned from the network.
Yes.
TAJ assumes that PtP rewards a person who has hurt others. That is complete BS.
By definition - you simply don’t know (and can’t know) who posted what (if the SAFE network works the way it’s supposed to).
Even if the content itself shows someone actually being hurt (say, a Daesh member blowing up a church full of people), you can’t know whether the person who posted it had anything to do with the production of the video (a porn related example that illustrates the same point I already gave).
So all he’s got is a bunch of baseless assumptions without a shred of reason based upon which he expects us to instead frequent Facebook and watch state television.
Good point, but you should be more precise: “for evil purposes” can be subject to interpretation (so you fall into TAJ’s trap). You should have simply indicated that the way content was produced used “uninitiated violence”. That should mean “evil” to any human being.
Thanks to creative people who just invented the hammer and the wheel without giving it much moral thought
we have come as far as to bring the SAFE network and safecoin into our contemporary reach . Let’s do it :
Just do it
Yes, yes, yes! The only restriction on freedom should be a hippocratic imperative. Projecting bias through control (power) is the root of most of the suffering in the world today imo.
I think the vid you posted yesterday is relevant.
Good design shouldn’t compromise to the inevitable ‘buts’ who need placating. If something works better that way then you can justify risks… like not taking pin # in the ticket machine in that video. There will be some abuse, but will it work better?
You seem to be in conflict with yourself and I understand fully where you are coming from but I am 100% at peace for the following reasons:
When attacked we generally respond by fight or flight. Therefore, two people will have a different response to the same act of violence. Two kids grow up in the same violent family, one becomes a surgeon the other a serial killer. Both are cutting people but in different ways.
I can not control anybodies response but my own. Therefore, I am only responsible for my response and not anyone elses. Even if I am violent towards another, (by my poor shopping choices to use your example) they can still choose to respond to me nonviolently or retaliate by detonating themselves in a crowd of people they consider to represent me.
The choose remains with the individual as well as the responsibility ALWAYS!
However, accepting responsibility for somebody else’s wrongdoing is not the same as feeling bad about not having done everything to stop them / make it harder for them to do it. Though I do see that in many cases that’s just not possible.
I still feel it ironic that we are trying to pay the producer of a good while we admit it will (and should) be impossible to verify if they are indeed the producer of said good; that just doesn’t compute.
Let’s be honest and call the thing “Pay the Contributor”: whoever shares something will be rewarded for doing so, regardless if it was theirs, and then we can argue if that’s a good idea.
So you’re feeling badly about not being able to stop the bad guys. I get it. But all is not lost. There are other ways. As @neo said, the bad guys have to interface with the real world and that’s how we’ll get them.
I fully agree we should change the name to pay the contributor as this more accurately defines what PtP is.
You touched upon one of issues I tried to highlight, and that is that many of those who side with the likes of TAJ don’t feel there is a moral issue with paying the poster (rather than the producer) of a Disney movie, but think there’s an issue in paying the poster of some porn image they don’t like.
What a bunch of jokers.
@Safety1st PtP can stand for Pay the Poster. Some posters will be actual producers and some will provide digital signature of their authorship, so as long as PtP works the way it works I’d use PtP.
So wait, if sharing a Disney video demands the same judgment than promoting videos of, let’s say, the raping of children, then I guess calling somebody a jerk should also be judged the same as murdering somebody, correct? The joke is on who exactly…
I used an empty concept that designates mere sense, not the specific meaning, to express that what is evil can only be determined by the people in the network. The only legitimate way to determine it outside of a consensus would be a consensus before it is live, like a constitution, but I think that systems needs to be dynamic, so some kind of smart-legislation and smart-constitution is needed, to adequately represent the change of the spirit of people. For example if today, we’re not totally appaled at eating meat, in the future pictures of cooked meat could be regarded as evil as child pornography today, the system needs to be dynamic enough to adapt to such a change.
What “system” needs to be dynamic, when censorship on a system designed to be censorship resistant is … well, impossible? (if everything works according to the plan, that is)
Reputation system is regulation, not censorship, something censored is always enforced against the common sense, while this common sense itself regulates itself as what is ‘decent to say or do’ and this changes over time. Nothing that was hated by most of the population ever needed to be censored. Of course only what is public can be regulated.
Because you propose we make the network favorably to one political position or another thereby fiddling with the neutrality of the network and increasing the likelihood it will be forked?
If one uploads their stuff as public data it’s going to be pirated. This was true on the internet 1.0 and is still true on internet 2.0. But on internet 2.0 you get paid for your stuff either way. Moreover if random people share it then that gets their name out there and they, the creator, are the source of that content. If I find a Nayuta song on youtube am I going to go to the pirate that shared it to get more Nayuta music or to the artist that produces the music? As long as the artist is alive and producing new content it doesn’t matter if their stuff is pirated because they’re the fount of new content and the pirates can only share what has already been created, which may reduce in demand and therefore value over time as people look for newer content from the artist. Assuming of course the artist keeps on producing quality content. He who creates owns. Why? Because he who creates can create more but he who merely copies what has been created cannot.
But like I said, there’s absolutely nothing TAJ, goingdown or anyone else can do about the users’ choice.
Keep going with your arguments that aren’t in fact going anywhere…
Sorry, I didn’t read your original post. I agree that reputation systems will be useful. The way I see, there will be many providers that will tag content based on their own rules or beliefs. They will be like search engines, and people will be able to consult them to find stuff they like. Or, to see if a specific document is something they would like, but also to avoid that which they hate.
To build such services, we would of course need a PtP system, against which I kind of argued just a couple posts above… Talk about consistency
I may hear and like a Nayuta song but I have no idea Nayuta is the name of the band that created the song I just enjoyed from a pirate site.
But I doubt a pirate will advertise for those they just stole from saying oh buy the way I stole this music from so and so. They will more then likely take full credit and I will never know who produced the original content.
This is exactly one of the reasons I do not support Pay the Poster. I’d prefer to see this managed at the App level. People can pirate and post all they want on an app but at least we won’t be paying them for it. Not to say if we do pay them this is immoral because we would be paying original content equally as we’ve already argued.
An App developer on the other hand can program to pay original content exclusively if they like. They could pay any poster if they choose or even have a ranking and regulation systems like @nihilnegativum was suggesting. There is so much flexibility and things we can do with apps that I feel like PtP requires because of these complexities.
The nice things is we can be pretty sure that an app developer who attaches thier wallet to a popular app they developed actually developed that app. But a pirate poster will be benefiting from original producer content and is this really necessary for the network to survive? Posters will also be a lot more negligent about what they post vs a developer who takes the time to develop an app. We will get a lot more quality apps then posts. If the network is gonna be paying for content, I rather see the majority of the network resources go to quality apps then a bunch of crappy “immoral” posts.
There will be some abuse, but will it work better?
