No, your idea is to indulge the stupid; the idea behind SAFE is to free us from it. Just another iteration of the age old battle between those who want to impose and control others; and those who want to be left alone.
1 Like
I disagree. Putting everyone in their own self-imposed censorship bubble will do nothing to wear down the walls separating groups of humans from eachother. If it were up to me, no such filtering would be made possible. But it isnât up to me, so such systems will crop up. I only hope they will be used by a minority.
To respond to things mentioned earlier, there should be no ability to refuse to host content you deem unsavory. As it stands now the network will just rank you down and refuse to store anything on your node if you start deleting stuff you donât agree with and that is exactly as it should be.
3 Likes
Maybe I am wrong, but I think the network will need some kind of search engine wich works wich tags and filters. So why shouldnât it be up to the users how they tag and filter?
At a platform level, itâs the same issue as net neutrality. As I suggested above: A Good communication platform, not corrupted, cannot be partial. A Good and uncorrupted platform, necessarily must be neutral to the content. By all means have a search engine that excludes content, if thatâs what you want for yourself but donât expect to dull othersâ capability.
3 Likes
Were talking about accurate search and the ability to filter noise from our search results. I personally would say the spam and sponsorship are noise, and sponsorship is a conflict if interest meant to filter and misinform. If communities donât trust sponsored sources and donât want spam they should be able to tag it to get it out of their attention span, but it would still be accessible at the flick of a switch they controlled, and it would be them as end users comming up with the most common tags for particular pieces of content, the core tag would be the current consensus. There is no right to interrupt nor a right to ignorance. Weâre talking about (if I am not mistaken) the end user or individual retaining control over their own attention, time and energy. Your attention shouldnt be in anyway slaved. Short of bots its a natural filter.
But hey maybe there are people who want to add resouces to support spam and sponsorship and really censorship, they would be able to apportion some of their resources to such tags. As would all the big current sponsor based industries and SAFE might have tons of resource to support it but under this model not many takers and it would die down. The notion of resource apportionment is pretty threatening because it looks like an area for manipulation. but we have to remember that it would be the end users (if done right) doing it and they are the only ones qualifed to do it and if uncorrupted would be empowering at the very least in terms of system efficiency. It cuts down on bribery as accepted speech and helps limit thr arbitrary power of money.
I shall avoid a wall of text and just suggest that opt-in is better than opt-out. The OPâs idea does not appear brilliant, despite you suggesting otherwise.
1 Like
I find it fascinating that we build a censorship-proof platform, and the first thing people want to do is engineer the censorship back inâŚ
There is an important reason why the network does not know what is stored and where it is stored â Because if it does, censorship is possible.
You do not host anything as a maidSAFE vault except for meaningless gibberish. Combined with other meaningless gibberish, the meaninglessness goes away⌠But that happens on the client end, not the server end.
In short, if you feel guilty about enabling content of all types to be shared with the world, MaidSAFE is not for you⌠If you are against censorship, and support the free flow of ideas, support MaidSAFE â But you will not be able to pick and choose what piles of gibberish you host, because they are piles of gibberish, and if you knew what they where when re-assembed it would undermine the security of the entire network.
Even if this is âPublicâ the filesystem works the same - because censorship usually happens at a public levelâŚ
There can be layers of tagging that allow clients to avoid downloading content known to be of a particular nature â but that will work on the client end, not the system endâŚ
8 Likes
@jreighley very well put, in my opinion. @davidpbrown, the essence of being able to say no would be the default being opt in for all cases.
1 Like
As vaults are no longer persistent anymore, it is even better to think of data as always just traveling about. In some sense that alleviates the problem even more: youâre not hosting emcrypted chunks, just passing them on; temporarilly holding on until you switch off your vault.
2 Likes
Anything that can be said, can be said clearly?..
A default option to opt-in and say no to the censorship that wasnât requested, is exactly the same as an opt-out!! Itâs offensive to a Good open system of communication and again itâs not difficult to see why. You have no right to impose your values on others. Golden rule: donât impose your stupidity on other people. Your opinion of what is good, differs from reality and will differ from what others will want.
The whole idea is ridiculous and is only testament to why we need SAFE.
1 Like
@davidpbrown thatâs too harsh. Clearly people dont want to divide the commonwealth and even selective contribution may be too high a burden, but a system that was just a single dev offered tag based search to be used if the end user found it appealing is not unreaonable, even if it became dominant on SAFE, as long as the end user controlled filters could be easily switched off by the end users.
In a way this is the type of stuff weâd want from good AI but in plain language. There is still merit in what the OP is suggesting. Just as there is in an end user interface built into the OS that gives the end user total control over the interface in a way that cannot be circumvented.
As above, users are free to develop whatever they want on top and above the platform.
SAFE is âSecure Access For Everyoneâ⌠itâs not intended to be useful, only the way that you imagine.
Its not about tagging vaults. Its about tagging domains/IDs. The public content will be tracked and scanned anyway. Probably by NSA tools even before any kind of search engine. And it has to be tagged for a search engine. I donât get why you think it is censorship if domains/IDs are tagged by the crowd instead of bots and companies.
Thx for your good advise. But I think I can decide on my own if SAFE is for me or not.
Of course, filtering should happen on the client end.
Aw ok⌠Did not know that.
Ironic given that you want to impose your opinion on others.
Because the users are anonymous, you will not know who is tagging whatâ Censorship is censorship no matter who is doing it. Most people want to ban certain people from doing certain things, but then turn around and allow people like themselves to do the same thing they are trying to ban companies or goverments from doing â It really doesnât work that way. There is one set of rules that will apply to every user because the network is ignorant of who the users are.
I donât really have a bone of contention about optional tagging that users can subscribe to and filter on their own â The video specifically talked about vaults being able to decline hosting certain content â And that is an impossibility under the system as it is currently built â and for good reason. I do not support the network knowing what it holds and where it holds it, because the main security feature of the network is that it does not know what it hold and it does not know where it holds it.
As far as public hosting being indexed by all kinds of three letter entities. Donât disagree â But the 3 letter entities wonât be able to do anything about it. The information is out there and hosted by a misty cloud⌠Unless you build them a handle to pull there is no way for them to eliminate the hosting and delivery of the informationâŚ
It will be a good day when SAFE obsoletes the Great Firewall of China. I donât think it is a good idea to re-engineer in features to let them build a new oneâŚ
1 Like
For what do we need SAFE?
There are around 7.500.000.000 people in that world. What make you sure that they all have the same intention like you?
Once again: I respect your old fashioned ideas of
but I am pretty sure that the internet of the future is much more than an anonymous storage, wich could be hacked after a while by security services. It is a space for meeting people, to communicate, for making business. It needs to be attractive for everyone. Of course it has to be anonymous and secure. And hopefully one day it will be organized from inside by the people without any governments.
It is your personal right to hide yourself behind the word censorship. But I prefer to think in any direction.
âIts not about tagging vaults. Its about tagging domains/IDs. The public content will be tracked and scanned anyway. Probably by NSA tools even before any kind of search engine. And it has to be tagged for a search engine. I donât get why you think it is censorship if domains/IDs are tagged by the crowd instead of bots and companies.â
I dont think they think that. Part of what youâre proposing seemed to be the consensus on search on the forum even prior to your post. I suspect the part that makes them nervous is the notion of determining whatâs in a vault to apportion resources, even if done by end users. Of course, I could be way off on their point of view, just a guess from prior back and forth sessions.
I am less spooked aside from practical considerations because Iâd like to see all the conflicts removed from the system. But it does seem in practice that most of that can be achieved on the user side. Does seem that search would take on a bit of distributed computing functionality latter that would honor end user requests.
Totally agree! But are u sure to be afraid of abuse is better than thinking about features, wich could be helpfull? To learn from the past doesnât mean that we have to go back to stone age.
I am not a developer, so I canât do anything then wait⌠(=
I just thought to find openminded people here, who like to think about the future of the internet in several ways. I didnât expect to come accross so much fear.
1 Like