I’m with this one as well. I can bet that none of my friends will be interested to install a dedicated browser for SAFE but if it’s just a plugin in Chrome they might give it a try…
Wishful thinking but if SAFE gains enough attention hopefully Chrome will change to allow a more flexible link handling? 
If I’ve understood it, the current plan will work with any browser out of the box - no plugins - just install the SAFE client and go! 
oh, ok ,misunderstood it then 
it’s a little late here and all the technical terms are messing in my head…
well in that case that is really a great approach that will sure not hinder the acceptance of many people 
kudos team
I’m probably missing something here, but I imagine that the server, once it’s located the resource (or not) will pass a normal http://localhost/mysite.com to the OS, which will then pass it to the preferred browser . The link would be a local file that contains js that can push the SAFE:mysite.com link to the browser address bar (but not the history). The content however would have links like http://localhost/mysite.com/link1.html …link2.html …etc. So effectively calling to the local SAFEnet webserver to provide the data. Copying links would be a problem … but all else I think would work. Then again, I am possibly missing something.
A more consistent approach would likely require a custom browser hacked to deal with “SAFE:” … but that would of course mean that people would need to use a SAFEnet browser which is rather limiting and I think we’ll need to wait until we have a large number of people using SAFEnet before we consider doing that – although maybe I’m wrong here.
I am not concerned that we will be ‘stuck’ with using a fixed tld into the future. IMO, we will have ‘SAFE:’ sooner rather than later simply due to the ability for existing brands to cross-over into the SAFEnet paradigm e.g. SAFE:google.com
(Introduction: I don’t know a lot of what’s going on with this topic, especially right now due to the turbulent nature of everyone/myself getting cozy and then being ripped into new territory, constantly—let alone that said coziness in the first place might not even be based on full comprehensions. Nevertheless: welcome to my post – that I, regardless, spent a lot of time on! [Still, even if I am off-center in my thinking –> that which lists ahead is some scattered, simple, new content.] )
…
RFCs are brilliant I’m realizing, since it’s so often that people can be proud of their idea—an idea which can be a huge step in the right direction.
…Yet, after even that, there are still more steps.
Afterward, someone else can ‘step’ in, at that point, and show their idea after creatively having come to its conclusion (which is likely based on the previous person’s step).
That said, what about " _S_ttp:// " … ?
Surely, “safe://” feels really good for all involved in the community, right now—utilizing exact mimicry, of the name for which everyone has fought a decade.
But sttp:// retains 85+% of the text/characters that people are used to, when viewing the 'net.
//** On a different note: perhaps, people obsessed with phone-like simplicity these days might not even know about _h_ttp, lol. **//
//** (Or, even weirder, somehow integrate the SAFE Network into " shttp:// " – so that, basically, every website now has “shttp://” tacked onto it. …That’s probably too conflicting, though.) (Also, at that/this point and beyond in this post, I’m probably in over my head, with my possibly insufficient knowledge; so, beware…!) **//
…
Furthermore, certain people maybe will crave a ‘switch’ on the browser that switches between http://, and sttp://. … (This part isn’t me being over my head. After all, ‘switches’ of convenience are as casual as anything.)
… Of course, sttp:// and http:// are two entirely different Internets. But, I can imagine opportunistic people—once the SAFE Network is basically/fully out—mirroring entire, existing clearnet websites onto their own hard drives, to host the collective data (of which these people are hopefully the original owners… but that can’t be guaranteed, that I know of—maybe not even likely, because of the Safecoin incentive…!—but I digress).
…
So, install the SAFE client, and enter “s” instead of “h”, and you have access to an entirely new Internet. Simple, huh? 
. (Everything else can be added upon that, with an add-on, etc., for even further casual atmosphere.)
… … …
(An off-topic “Forum.Safenetwork.IO” web design bug, while I’m here: Using underscores to denote italics does not properly work when within square brackets! && Two line breaks are required for the italics to work, within the square brackets.) [Example given: Hello, world!.
[Example 2 given: Hello, world!.]
[Example 3 given: Hello, world!.]
[Example 3b given: Hello, world!.]
[Example 4 given: Hello, world!
[Example 5 given: Hello, world!.
Exactly. Once you build it, people will use it. If it went to masses, it will be harder for them to move over to a newer better client. Like for an example, ICANN / DNS system. There are better dns system out there but nobody is switching over because they are lazy, and they rather stick with the old system that already exist, and works.
But the problem is people won’t switch - as you point out - just because you build it, so long as what they have still works.
This seems to be the difference between people on mass adoption and the importance of designing the system to amplify this.
Some seem to think that, because SAFEnetwork is going to be awesome (as we all realise) that the masses will flock over to it.
Others, myself included don’t believe this, because it is very hard indeed to get the large majority of any crowd to move from one working system to another, almost no matter how much better the new system is.
That’s the problem we face when we talk about mass adoption, and I believe we need to do everything we can to help make it happen, because IMO it would be disastrous if SAFEnetwork were slow, or in fact never, to achieve mass adoption.
True, but it’s a double edged sword. If people can use SAFE with their current browser, they probably aren’t going to switch to a dedicated one because it provides better security and anonymity, while they probably should.
People will expect that on SAFE they can browse privately and anonymously, but the fact is that a regular browser will be highly insecure. It’s going to be a piece of cake to get people to visit honey pots on SAFE that de-anonymises them. All it takes is a few lines of JavaScript. One could avoid it by using plugins like NoScript and reading JavaScript files yourself before enabling them, but no one is going to do that.
In the Western world de-anonymisation is usually not a big deal, but in too many parts in the world it gets people killed. I honestly fear that it’s going to happen to SAFE users. The vast majority of SAFE users will be clueless in regards to opsec, so we, the technically competent, should do as much as we can for them in advance. Preparing secure browser configrations is a must in my opinion. Your SAFE browser shouldn’t have direct access to the internet, period.
There will be many threats, and I do take your point, but as I’ve said before I think we have to look at the risks on both sides of the question:
Or
My contention is that overall, we protect more people from serious consequences with 1) than 2), and that we achieve a lot more besides, by providing the wider benefits of SAFE which go far beyond anonymity, to a far larger number of people. This is the world changing win, and why so many people are so passionate about this project I think.
I’m not here just to protect free speech and association - protecting people from immediate targeted persecution. I also believe the only way to protect people from that in the longer term is to build a better system overall and I see Project SAFE as part of that evolution.
If we fail in that, 99.9% of humanity will suffer from the consequences, not just a small number who are unfortunate enough to be targeted for their beliefs or associations at the present time.
I just don’t think that a bundled SAFE browser or not makes that big a difference. For most people it means nothing more than an extra button on their desktop and a slightly different looking window.
Also, a SAFE browser doesn’t have to be complicated, initially a rebranded Firefox with a secure default configuration (restricted connection settings, no third-party cookies allowed) is enough.
Anyway, regardless of what’s decided here, I think such a SAFE browser should be made and will definitely support or even start such an initiative (Decorum has priority for now). After that I’ll be scaring the shit out of as many people as I can by luring them to SAFE webpages that throw their IP address in their faces when they visit them using an insecure browser. Of course it’ll include a recommendation to switch to safer alternatives.
Step back and look at the system and I see a big difference: people share a URL.
Someone without SAFE sticks it where they’ve always stuck it - firefox/chrome etc (or click it like they’ve always clicked it). If we want, we can make that URL so something useful, or we can let it fail without explanation. The difference between those is enormous.
Adoption is about the experience of none SAFE users even more than that for SAFE users (though both matter), so this choice will have a big impact on ease of adoption.
I certainly agree we need a SAFE Browser as well. This isn’t either / or though, so we can and should still do that.
I think incentives and simple, quick and easy process (obvious/no brainer choices, immediacy, minimal disruption to habits etc) are effective in adoption, wherase creating fear is not, so I would be careful about that.
The dominant reaction to fear is to back away. This is why product advertising focuses on benefits, on positive incentives to act such as opportunity, and associating the product with imagery of things we want and desire rather than saving us from things that threaten us. People get sucked in by what is positive because it feels good, so they absorb the information better, and are more likely to associate the offer with something positive, which encourages us to move towards it, talk about it, imagine what it would do etc. Much more powerful.
Fear is used to inhibit people from making a change, to make them cling to the known, the status quo - hence the fear mongering of politicians is about suggesting that voting for their rival is dangerous (“a risk to national security”, “risk to the economy” etc).
@happybeing, @Seneca, @Krishna_Kumar
The first wave. Bundle no-script with the SAFE add-on and design an annoying pop up that breaks down the security implications of that iteration and proper op sec.
Something like: ATTENTION! If you are a new user you must keep this in mind. Blah blah for maximum security. Blah blah Understood?.
The user must then click a check box and solve a very simple math problem to ensure they are focused and thinking critically. 5 seconds later another pop shows up with a reworded version of the previous message and an apology. 10 seconds later the same occurs informing the user that it the last until not accessed for 30 minutes.
This will drill it in. If anyone thinks this is too much, consider that you’re running this through your personal filter. Don’t. This is intended to save lives. Our personal competency and carefulness does not reflect everyone else’s.
To protect multi-user machines, the add-on will always reissue a very succinct version of the first message if the browser has not connected to SAFE for 30 minutes or longer. This way if another person in the household uses your browser after your last connection to SAFE was at least 30 minutes ago and happens to stumble upon a SAFE link, the add-on will pop up and say something to effect of “You’re about to enter the SAFE network. Be careful! Remember what you have been told. Click here to review safety practices.This is very important if you’ve never done this before.”
We need to avoid sounding too technical. That would ultimately scare users off. We need to word it like a very concerned friend. Using casual terms to achieve the desired understanding.
I don’t care how annoying this will be nor should anyone concerned with user safety. This is bleeding edge technology with almost no notoriety. A few seconds dealing with pop ups is a very small price to pay for ones life and freedom.
Second wave. Re-brand the Tor Browser and put a link to it in the updated add-on pop up. Make sure to make it extremely eye catching. Example: “We are proud to bring you blah blah blah. For the better security click here to download.”
This way we can speed the transition to a secure browser while still allowing initial ease of use and wide browser support.
Sorry to jump in folks, but have you been looking at Brendan Eich’s new browser brave → now on github Brave Software · GitHub This could be interesting!
Do I smell a late collaboration with Brendan? Are you with the above idea? The second wave introducing a customized version of brave browser?
What are you talking about man, people move to the next best thing all the time!
Myspace - facebook is the best example
All we have to do is build the better thing, and then it spreads
It’s real!
Lots of people got the tor browser. But it could have spread better i guess…
But I also am OK with all the crazy other TLD’s etc for the time being, just so people can try out SAFE with their beloved chrome.
After that, it’s just a matter of time before SAFE takes over and chrome isn’t the best fit anymore, so a SAFEr browser will take over 
I see both sides i guess.
I just hope that we’re building the “safe:” protocol also, for the long term, because then it’s like a true evolution of the internet
Facebook grew not by people moving from MySpace, but by new people joining facebook faster than people were joining MySpace, which was actually stagnating anyway.
Beware believing what you want to happen is going to happen.
Moving people from a working system to a better, in our opinion, system is a lot harder than people joining a new system as in the case of facebook.
Anyone seen the Facebook movie and the way it targeted female sociology being the master of php.
Facebook appeals to the primitive nature of humanity bringing talk shows gossip to the internet.
Safe network can provide everyone with their own profile site with no limitation, as I see with bitcoin be your own bank and safe network be a master of your own domain.
As a Facebook user, I would like to transfer my profile to the safe network because I still want connection with friends and family but I do not want my private data stored and owned by Facebook.
The question is how do I get to share a link of a photo and have people to get easy access without jumping through hoops?
Wait isn’t this not true at all because all they’ll have to do is download the new decentralized app? Or maybe the launcher?
I imagine it being as easy as going to Skype.com and installing their software. Am I wrong in my understanding?
You underestimate the apathy of the masses.