Who cares about the masses, I mean really? If they don’t want to educate themselves, they’re just going to die by some psychopathic ruling class disguising themselves as conservatives/liberals claiming to help them. The sooner they do something about themselves to help themselves, the better.
What I have just said was really harsh. (It’s based on a recent reading I did on cell phones and mercury dental fillings being related in a very bad way. But any mass mind/physical controls are relevant examples as well.)
But, it is only harsh because it’s expressly what, “apathy of the masses,” the phrase, makes me think about. I wouldn’t mind if Earth existed with a group of humans called, “the masses,” yet who don’t rely on “apathy.” (Then again it’s a chicken-egg scenario, too: what’s causing the apathy is preventing them from being educated in the first place.)
…
However, in reality, it is up to everyone to help each other not be apathetic.
That said, back to the topic at hand!!
Just jumping in because I think it´s an interesting discussion (not all too OT). I think you have a point with not caring to much, but to me that´s a very individualistic stance. SAFE can work even if only 50 people use it. There is no need for millions to adopt. However, I think in this thread there are some people who have more than individualistic interest in the project and want it to become big. For this political interest “the masses” have to be considered a critical factor. They 0have to be adressed and there needs to be marketing to appeal to them. Of course, if it´s just about individual behaviour this is all utter nonsense or at least irrelevant. I think you look at things differently, that´s why you come to a different conclusion.
Not wrong - I think you’re thinking about the “difficulty” only in terms of installing and learning the software. The difficulty/ease includes this, but another very important factor is the psychology.
People have to make a decision to change, and a lot of factors influence that. For example, consider moving from facebook to diaspora - have you done that? I did at the start but I still use facebook! I’ve tried no end of times to persuade some of my friends to try diaspora but they haven’t, because facebook works well for them, and frankly, diaspora would not - partly because it doesn’t do such a great job, partly because it is hard to join (much harder than facebook) and requires learning a different model and software features, but mostly because they won’t know anyone there, and all the people they usually connect with won’t be there.
I think that’s much more kind of problem we face - so I think our best strategy is to work well alongside the existing internet for the time being, until we build up to a level where people are spending most of their time on SAFE and start to leave the old internet entirely. This is migration of use rather than switching from one to the other.
I am beginning to see that, just as with the existing internet, SAFEnet will have a variety of ways to access it … probably not all at once, but in time. Just as those of us who want the ultra-secure routes currently use Tor for DNS and browsing, we will use our own custom browser(s) and protocols with SAFEnet (in time). On the other hand, those who aren’t so security-conscious will continue to feed the NSA all their meta-data … lol.
In the end, fools can’t be protected, and IMO we best not attempt to force them because fools are inherently stubborn and they’d just run away from our help and forsake any protection they might gain.
So I reckon @Krishna_Kumar 's way forward is a good starting point.
I also notice that “safe.net” which goes to “http://www.safenet-inc.com/” and they have changed their name to “gemalto”. I hence wonder if they’d be willing to sell “safe.net”
1.) if a safenet extension is in the browser, then it could redirect the link to a local SAFEnet web server.
2.) if not then it would by default go to “safe.net” and they get the instructions they need to get set-up as @happybeing has suggested.
3.) And in a year or two down the line we’ll have our own SAFEnet browser … which, will be able to automatically accept the pre-existing “http://mysite.com.safe.net” OR “safe://mysite.com”.
Another thought occurred to me today which is along these lines - of multiple ways to access SAFEnetwork - is that even if the launcher doesn’t support it, individuals can still share SAFE links via a real web domain.
So for example, I could set up happybeing.com so that certain URLs there display a page which instructs people to download SAFE launcher, and provides the actual SAFE URL for the corresponding page being accessed.
I can share this with anyone as: http://blog.happybeing.com (I own the domain happybeing.com). It won’t go directly to SAFE even if the user has SAFE launcher installed, because the launcher won’t recognise it as a SAFE URL (it’s my private little scheme).
So I have to set up a little server side php script at blog.happybeing.com to display a normal web page that explains: you just tried to visit a SAFE URL for a website that exists on the SAFEnetwork, but to visit it you must install SAFE launcher from here (link) and then click on http://blog.happybeing.safenet
It’s not ideal, because it is a bit more confusing than my safenetwork.net proposal because the shared URL differs from the actual SAFE URL. In the proposal they would be the same. It’s also more work, and different explanations, and variations on the URL format from different implemented, would add to the confusion. So I still think the safenetwork.net proposal would be better.
I just don’t really agree. I mean, they won’t know what’s happening under the hood, they’ll just know that this new flashy app that just came out (SAFEx, for example) has no way of being hacked, they’ll never lose their BTC to the exchange, etc etc.
Or this new n99 will let them do Social network things and make money From the music they post etc.
If one SAFE App doesn’t catch on with the masses, eventually another one will, and Most people probably won’t ever even know that it’s a SAFE App. I don’t see any deep psychological battle that has to occur for each user. All that’s happening is new, better apps will start to become available to people. Like magic
We may be talking at cross purposes here - you about adopting a new app / me about switching from internet to SAFEnetwork.
I don’t disagree with what you say about apps, I think people will adopt for those kind of reasons.
I think the difference is that you feel that apps will be compelling enough to get very large numbers of people to switch relatively easily, while I think there are many factors that will inhibit switching or take up, and that we’ll need to think carefully about how we design things to give us the best chance possible to reach as many users as possible.
You could well be right! But the consequences of you turning out to be wrong, mean that I think we should work as hard as possible on mass adoption, and not assume it will just happen.
Yeah I guess I view the internet these days as just lots of different apps. And that’s it.
Especially on my phone, it’s either the Chrome app or the Skype app or the Phone app etc. And just look at your desktop and all Most people deal with is app icons
So if SAFE is producing the better apps, people incrementally switch over to SAFE, one browser, social network, exchange, or marketplace at a time without even knowing it.
Although the SafeCoin part might be a tiny bit confusing at first.
The problem is that it isn’t this simple. To do this people “just” have to realise they need to install SAFEnetwork, use some different way to install the app than they’re expecting and used to, remember how to start it, etc etc.
I’m not saying people won’t do this, my point is that these seemingly small differences are actually large differences to most people, and that only a relatively small number of people find and install this stuff when it is new (people like us). And that it is actually very hard for us to get them to jump! Plenty of examples: Windows to Linux / facebook to diaspora etc.
Also, many apps these days are social, or if not, are expected to have social features that will make them seem useless or not that good, if they only work on SAFEnetwork, where there are so few people a new user will know to be social with. Hence the value of being able to “migrate” - straddle the two networks - if we can.
So yes, it can happen incrementally, but once the early adopters have switched we risk it stalling and either never taking off on a large scale, or taking a long long time.
If we want mass adoption, all these “barriers” need to be considered and reduced as much as we think is possible without undermining the purpose and value of SAFEnetwork.
Personally, I think people will join up to SAFEnet over time in ANY case. I think the direction the State is moving will drive those who survive the coming financial collapse into systems of strong anonymity - particularly with regards to money.
SAFEcoin and SAFEnet are really the only options on the horizon and thus, while it’s not always true that ‘if you build it, they will come’ … in the case of this project, I personally think it holds true.
We could thus use the same pointer @happybeing wants, but would allow for the future creativity of using any tld. The extension built by @Krishna_Kumar to redirect the url can trigger on any string in the url - it doesn’t need to be a tld e.g. ‘.safenet’. Hence we can have our cake and eat it too. So why not?
It should be no problem to use safe: or even safer:
Chrome handles such as External Protocol Call Requests ;
I assume other browsers do the same ; it’s just neat & short
I think that file sharing may pave the way for the network. Why use torrents when you can use safe files? Farming will pay for the uploads. This alone will bring people to the network, and they will eventually explore other features and apps.
I’d like to see SAFE launcher operate kinda like google play services, where the apps just use it in the background and no separate login is needed. I think a key for adoption is having the user not have any extra steps. Having to use the launcher and apps separately after launch would get tedious for sure…
…or remove the tedium (and risk) of having to manage multiple app accounts - by accessing them all with one secure SAFE account that you and you alone are in control of
Is this true? Chrome not supporting custom protocols (even via extensions) was presented as the reason to go for .safenet instead of safe:// which would be much better.
