Network Abuse Protections

Features
41

This has nothing to do with being able to censor or not. This point is simply will we have sites that the general public will want to visit. Just like the internet there could also be other sites they don’t want to visit. No one will force them to visit the ones they don’t want to. SAFE is not a “PUSH” service, but like the current internet people visit sites they want to. So this point has nothing to do with censorship.

Your whole point in the opening post was to allow the ability to censor the content stored on SAFE (public you say) itself. And not for APPs to be able to weed out the content you don’t want to see.

As soon as you allow a group of people (random or not) to remove content from SAFE then it becomes open slather for any government in the world to censor (remove) any public content. The reason so much stuff on the current web pages is not removed is because the server resides in a country that allows that particular content. Now SAFE does not have a country governing it. It is world wide and your censoring group is not limited to a server, but the whole of SAFE’s public content.

Now the reason SAFE is not able to be censored is that the following would happen, not maybe, but absolutely would happen if you allow groups to remove content.

  • The UAE would remove content that is offensive to them.
  • ISIS would remove content that is negative to them
  • USA would remove content that embarrasses the government
  • China would remove references to their human rights violations and so much more
  • Australia would take a scatter gun approach to what to remove
  • And so on

The reason they could is that even randomly selected people will have a majority who like or dislike something. So eventually nigh on all the content on SAFE would be removed by some random group. The only stuff left would be some basic educational material and the weather. The higher educational stuff would be removed by a random group that cannot stand the sight of it since they have no understanding of it or it offends their beliefs in some way.

Now if its just new material then we would have a scatter gun style of removal. When a random group majority is offended by some religious/news items/sexual education/whatever given to them to review then that is gone. But people in the majority want it. Or some really offensive terrorist material is reviewed by a random group whose majority see it as freedom fighters and allow it.

The point is that random people reviewing random new material will also see quite a significant portion of the new material removed, yet 90% of the world would want it to be on SAFE. Probability and statistics state this will happen with a certainty for some material.

The point of no censorship is not to allow the 0-1% of vile material to remain but to allow the 99+% of the material to remain. Australia has seen our equivalent of the SEC block 225,000 websites in one blocking order to the ISPs. All but one of those sites were good sites. We’ve seen the government take down material which in fact was in the public interest simply because the material was on a server in Australia and exposed the government’s corruption or contraindicated the government’s view.

tl;dr

Censorship knows no boundaries on SAFE. To allow one site/file to be censored is to allow all public files to be potentially censored. Remember censorship on the current internet is limited by the country the server is in, but for SAFE the “server” is world wide and all countries, religions, self interested groups, whatever.

The reason for wanting no censorship is not

10 Likes
42

I have always been an anti-social bugger. I think they got the hint when I moved hundreds of miles away from anyone I know to the most rural spot I could find at the same time as getting rid of my phone.

I can be emailed and people can wait for my earliest convenience, as it should be :wink: Nothing in life is ever that urgent.

Maybe a very small one that fits a couple of external HDs :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

4 Likes
43

I do in fact live in a faraday cage (pretty much) but do have a mobile phone unlike Jabs - work that one out! :wink:

On the OP, i think you’ve picked about the most difficult point possible to argue for with this audience - must be that Scottish blood you have. I’m not totally convinced that you are ‘wrong’ though, so by all means carry on. The big issue me is how we could possibly allow censorship of any public content without creating point of attack that would undermine the freedom that is at the heart of SAFEnetwork. You may need every drop of that Scottish tenacity.

But supposing you could do that, and convince most people here that there was a way to censor which was truly democratic and could not be abused, would we want it? Even the suspicion that it might be abused even if nobody can see how might still be enough to kill the idea, and of course there are many who would not accept it under any circumstances. I never say never myself, but can’t imagine myself going along with this.

I far prefer the idea that the network is agnostic, but that everyone can choose to use an application which filters it they want, or turn it off when they want. First thing I do with any search engine is turn off the ‘family filters’ and it annoyed me no end to discover that my ISP was automatically filtering my Web access and that I had to go through an age verification process to turn that off - and of course, the government influenced list of what gets filtered is both arbitrary and increasingly goes beyond what can be considered inappropriate for children.

9 Likes
44

There are plenty of things on the current Internet that I don’t want to look at, so I don’t. What’s important to me is that I get to choose what those things are.

4 Likes
45

It’s very likely that the most mainstream search engines or directories that will appear is going to filter out illegal content.

Making completely uncensored apps is not going to be easy, mainly because that means it has to be done anonymously by one or more individuals online, such apps can and will be made, but then it’s much harder then to get the resources to make the app good. If a company or a non-anonymous person is making an app, they will inevitably feel pressure by the public or the government to at least filter out the most extreme content.

For example if a company was making a SAFE version of YouTube, they would be sued by movie companies if it grows into a popular service for watching pirated movies and forced remove them from the app’s search results. If the movies were uploaded as immutable data, as would be likely, they would still be there and someone with the “filename” and access to the datamap could still play them, but that then would have to be shared on some pirate site that could be uncensored.

2 Likes
46

If you start censoring, where does one start and finish. For example, how do we treat the subject of Same Sex Marriage, currently a hot topic in Australia.mYou may see nothing wrong with it but I might hate the mere thought of it.

47

How will takedown requests be handled?

This seems to be a part of all centralised storage solutions and likely the source of issues for the network if they aren’t implemented - a bit like the torrent sites getting ghosted for non-compliance.

48

The only people who can take anything down will be the publishers of websites or users of applications which publish content, so a complaint will have to be delivered to them - not the network - which has no way to censor content. So how they handle this is not related to the network, but the content publisher. Same with the current Internet for the most part, except where domains are seized for example, which is not an option on SAFE.

5 Likes
49

I don´t see why. The current model forsees that app creators are paid by the use of the app. This way they can generated ressources to improve the app. An anonymous Youtube can potentially generate a lot of income without the creator to ever being in public. Sure, if the person is not anonymous, he*she will feel governmental/social pressure, but I don´t see why a person should reveal her real-life identity.

2 Likes
50

Perhaps eventually, if there’s enough open source components. Lots of ICOs do manage to get decent chunks of money these days, but would people pay for development of an app to an anonymous team, that might just take the money and run? Making something with all the features of YouTube is a rather massive undertaking, they have something like a thousand developers after all, not that you’d need everything though, but it’s not a one-man job either.

This pay the developer thing where 10% of the safecoins goes to app developers is interesting, but I’m not sure it will allow funding of anything other than relatively small and simple apps.

A simplified version of YouTube could be made by a small team or a single person though. Perhaps something like that will end up being very popular, who knows, though I suspect it might turn out to be something like liveleak vs YouTube. Nobody uses liveleak rather than YouTube, unless the content they’re looking for only exists on liveleak.

1 Like
51

Given the lower infrastructure costs for developers and expensive things like regulatory compliance that could be avoided I’d guess there are quite a few crypto devs nowadays who could afford to do things independently with zero outside funding. A large percentage of the smartest and best devs in this space are already fairly well-off and could work on whatever project they saw potential in. If SAFE really disrupts the disruption then it stands to reason some of those guys will start playing around with ideas and trying to find ways to take advantage of the USPs and opportunities on SAFE.

2 Likes
52

The most trust worthy APPs will be open source. With anonymity inevitably comes unaccountale code theft. In the case of youtube I believe some of the algos are open source.

Porting them over to SAFE along with future site templates will cut most of the dev effort. Stitching it all together is a one maybe two man job depending on skill level. The first APP devs will probably have it the hardest. :yum:

6 Likes
53

Here is another spanner in the cog of this idea, that I am ashamed to admit only thought of now.

That is HOW?

How do you pick these people. The network has zero way of knowing of accounts itself, the network only responds to a verified logged in account. The network has no register of account whether they are logged in or not.

There is no way for the network to give you a list of accounts logged in (or not logged in), it can respond to instructions that have the correct credentials, but immediately after cannot give you any indication of who it was or if anything was done even.

tl;dr
The network cannot randomly select 12 good and true SAFE citizens to sit on the Jury because it has nothing to choose from.

If your have a opt in system where volunteers add themselves to a list, then this is the worse form of censorship and content would be rejected left right and centre

4 Likes
54

As others have said (correctly) the instant this project becomes censored / regulated / controlled content / and all the other words you want to split hairs over, is the instance this project becomes just part of the noise. < Noise = any form of communication tech such as AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, ISP’s, etc. You’ll just be another blip on the screen of noise. Meanwhile, humans will still yearn for a way to communicate thoughts and ideas and fantasies completely and 100% UNCENSORED.

Come to think of it, the project should rebrand itself to be “MIND” because the only place that’s safe in the world to think and say what you want is inside your own mind. “They” can take away everything except for what’s in your mind. They can’t take that…yet.

We want to communicate and share freely. So it really boils down to > Cave and be just another tool, or > keep doing what you’re doing to make the network more secure and uncensored. SOMEONE or something needs to fill that desire. It may as well be the Safe Network. You’ve already got a good leap ahead of everyone else.

1 Like
55

Many things that probably will happen on the Safe-network are already happening in many softwares that exist of today. Exampel, extremists that uses popular encrypted private messaging apps to communicate or teenage gangs that uses instagram private accounts to share clips of sexual assaults. Have heard from research that mass-surveilance is not that good because it gives to many false positives and then the real threats are not discovered. Infiltration and follow the money and similar approaches can probably have good or even better effect then mass-surveilece that is of today. Hopefully the adoption rate of ordinary people and the positives that will come from the large majority of users, to be very beneficial for people and societies in many positive ways.

1 Like
56

Aye, I freely admit that sometimes my posts can be a bit of a mindfart, For which I apologise, the intention isn’t to troll or cause offense to anyone. A lot of the responses have really answered a lot of my concerns (thanks @neo… for every one of your “…and another thing…” posts :rofl:), whilst a few other posters have also reinforced them.

From the responses about the network needing to be completely unregulated, uncensored, unmonitored and anonymous. I agree that this could be possible for an underground network, but if you’re wanting to embrace the general public I honestly think this will be troublesome in terms of adoption…

So, for now, I guess Maidsafe is essentially just the platform? On top of the network would run various services that behave very similar (to the naked eye albeit anonymously) to the current internet… GoochTube, Friendface, Twatter; This will obviously keep the masses happy, Then the uncensored (important) side of things would still be accessible via ‘safe:// addresses’ which would probably be referred to as the ‘dark side of maidsafe’.

Completely off-tangent:
It looks like the current controlling media target is ‘terrorism’ rather than anything else like paedo stuff or drugs, I listened to a talk radio show earlier today and the things they were proposing were mindblowing. It really was worrying to hear the public suggesting that government have access to EVERYTHING.

I remember being in my late teens (late 90s), someone told me about the anarchist cookbook being available for download. I remember thinking about downloading it ‘for a laugh’ because it might turn out to be a bit of fun with my mates blowing up a coke can or something. I never did, but it was more that I grew up, and that’s not really the stuff you do when you can go out clubbing! Imagine downloading it now?!

2 Likes
57

I think governments like to retain the perception that they are in control, that they have their hands on the tiller, that they are ‘running the country’. Most people like to believe this too, as it provides them with a feeling of safety, especially when the media feeds their fears with stories of doom and gloom. This reinforces the power base that the state stands upon.

I stopped watching and reading the news years ago. The result? Less anxiety and little else. I also did not want my young children seeing the worst part of the world and believing it was normal, common and something to be feared. Moreover, I do not want to hear, nor want my children to hear, politicians declaring they will, and must, fix it all.

Most people seem to spend a life time worrying about imaginary threats and imaginary heroes to save them from them. I am quite certain there are some real threats, but they are much more likely to be far more mundane and closer to home than what is broadcast.

Society needs to evolve beyond being obsessed with badies and goodies, to stop suffering from Stockholm syndrome, then start seeing the vast goodness in the world. For where there is badness, we should pitty and help those afflicted with it.

For me, safe net can help humanity to take the next step of this journey. If it isn’t safe net, I am sure it will be something else in the future. Either way, we must move on from our current dependency on mass surveillance and control; it really isn’t healthy.

10 Likes
58

@Traktion Very pleased to read you on this early morning :slight_smile:
I fully agree with this : we tend to think we live in a society of information, when in fact we live in a society of make believe.
Taking back the unconditional ownership and control of the data and its transmission with Safe is one mandatory step to free us from the virtual world we wander in, and land again in reality.
Stopping listening to broadcast news is another.

2 Likes
59

Even if this becomes a so called haven of illicit stuff, that’s still a rather large user base and growing. The “Pirate” party has a decent amount of support across the younger generation around Europe, they’d probably be very interested in this project. Heck, get Anonymous on board, if they aren’t already. A large user base, regardless of what they are using it for is a net win for the network, as these people will start to use the network for things other than their illicit activities, and inevitably spread the news about what it can do.

Just by creating a more secure way for P2P transfer to replace torrenting, this already has a huge user base that could be waiting in the wings. Contact the Pirate Bay owners and have them get on board. Imagine the user base that could be generated overnight with a banner of support on the front page of Pirate Bay. Let them know now so they can develop a Safe App and generate revenue workout their ridiculous ads.

1 Like
60

Don’t be silly. Did you know that as many people are killed by wasps and bees as terrorism in the UK?

We need to start obsessing about this. The threat is real. The wasps are coming. In fact they’re in their nest right now, planning an attack on you and your children. If we don’t prepare for the war on wasps now, or fates will soon be sealed.

Do you want to be ruled by a wasp queen? That’s what will happen if we don’t take the wasp threat seriously, and get our politicians to make sure this war will be won once and for all.

7 Likes