"SAFE user ids were always accessible as a public attribute..."?

@Anders “I thought the SAFE user ids were always accessible as a public attribute.”

So is privacy being compromised for money?

I don’t see how a system like SAFE can ever be taken seriously if there is any movement in that direction.

From a common sense perspective if I am using the system and I start seeing ads and defaults that werern’t set to opt in, it tells me I can’t trust the system or the intent of the people who developed it.

@warren you are reacting to something and nothing. I don’t understand how you can follow this forum for so long, and on the basis of one member’s post start posting as if the project has suddenly betrayed you.

Firstly, by defintition, public IDs are public. You choose what public and anonymous IDs to use and who you share them with.

As for @Anders saying he’d like to build an ad service for use on SAFE, its open to anyone to build what they like on top of SAFE, always has been and always will be. This is no reflection whatsoever on the platform itself.

Nothing has changed! There’s no issue, just Anders floating an idea.


But there is no preset numeric public ID, changeable or or not, that is set to default opt out so as to make it easier for ad services to exist on the network?

I dont understand how its possible to think that ads can be pushed in exchange for most public content formats even for games at some point. The default price will be free. Its not like popcorn time will have ads it will be lucky to have after the fact micro payment donations for keep-up-the-good-work future works. Friction free in this case will mean the open source price and compete with free otherwise. So any site would have to ask to serve any kind of ad (so much for a service) and I pesonally dont want my cycles or space used for spam exchanges. The direct relations empower and the indirect is RIAA all down through history- the agent stuff hurts people.

Sorry about the distress but the stuff Erik was asking about with upfront bitcoin fees tied to SAFE is scary to me. The Jim Lowry stuff is transparent and laughable but 10 or 100$ in bit coin as an upfront for farming but not access when hardware is already contributed, and then the dissembling about trying to get it across to interested academic experts that might not be fast enough on the uptake…

If something concerns you, I suggest you ask the poster about it, although it seems @Erik’s explanation wasn’t enough!

@Erik wasn’t making a proposal. I was concerned by his question too - so I queried him on it. Several people did. It’s clear from the thread he was asking in order to explore his ideas for a technical paper only, so no reason for you to still see it as sinister. I dint know why you call it dissembling. In think you are being overly suspicious.

SAFE is safe in the hands of David and his fine team. I think we both know that by now. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yes nothing will happen that David doesn’t sign off on. Also its coming down to 7k plus lines of well documented code open forkable code which will be quickly verified by others. Chickundinner and others have expressed satisfaction with the progress, but suggested not being too transparent at the very last moments up to launch… Seems like its heating up. Launch is a launch.

The nice thing about SAFE is that anybody can do anything without anyone’s permission. You may like it, you may hate it, but you won’t know what it is and you won’t be able to stop it.

I always assumed Warren would turn on MaidSAFE… It avails way too much freedom in areas he insists need to be oppressed. Too bad, so sad… Advertising is free speech, and it will not be banned, because next to nothing can be banned.

The issue isn’t advertising so much, as long as its voluntary for all parties, the issue is what allowing consolidated sponsored media does to the public interest and how it supports dirty hand extractive political and economic institutions prone to collapse, some with nuclear weapons.

I think we had it mostly confirmed, with some check back, that if someone or people in general don’t want to see ads on SAFE they wont. That is a huge difference and its in the direction of privacy, its also the right balance.

Think of the commercials for the state in the US. Look at Judge Judy and the reality show court room where she as a public employee is getting 42 million in the state’s effort to propagandize its population about its justice system with a jury free small claims court and what look to be fake cases. Look at junk like Cops, same thing. The state spending money to persuade the government of the people that government is a separate entity. Instead of civics education or the people being allowed to evaluate the government they are supposed to operate they are instead propagandized by this elite BS.

Seems to me that making an ad blocker on SAFE would be a ton harder than making one one with the current technologies. Nobody would know what the file was until it was delivered and decrypted. With current technologies you can block based on IP addresses etc…

But with a SAFE OS and SAFE browser no BS browser tricks would be possible they would all be engineered out- of all the forks the one that rose to the top would do exactly that. And as I was suggesting else where the tech from HTML 5 could be step up with fast skip and something like call control on android to have the community weed out even stuff embedded in videos so you can get the filtered stuff always with the flick of a global switch and of course stuff full of crap will be down voted in and opted out of the community by proper SAFE search. So no, I don’t think so. SAFE deals with spam or peoples drives fill up with it. If not dealt with its liable to be a serious performance impediment.

If I’ve got the term right all that crap would just puff up if not de-duplicated, so its handled even there at a level that I trust can nix it. There is no balance here for the network to be useful all the power has to be in the end users hands especially for stuff that could be pushed. Economically I see the payment conventions in general being default free and end users paying exactly what they want for stuff, if they want and after the fact- at least for digital content.

So, we engineer a censorship-proof network, then engineer the censorship back in?

That seems like a really productive use of time.

The problem is that the content is unknown. You can put on your wish list “fast forward over stuff people show me that I don’t like” but that is WAY easier said than done – Because you don’t know what you are censoring till it is too late.

Majority rule oppresses minority opinion.

And anything that is censored can be altered by a bit or so, and it will be a new object in a new place that has not yet been voted on by anybody.

Its not censorship its called privacy, being able to hear ourselves thinking and control our own attention. Your version of privacy has the headlights blazing into your eyes so you can’t see anything and the volume from the ads so loud you can’t hear anything not even an individual ad.

Empowering the end user (even as an individual) means giving them back control over their attention so they can focus it to overlook indoctrination and use it to pursue their natural interests as they arise. Its a simple search function. Search narrows down the results and filters out noise relative to the specific interest.

Call control works very well, I think the arms race on that stuff can be ended even if ended by AI. AI if it ever works will kill the ads. If I don’t like the resolution on what I am getting I can switch of the filter like switching off traction control

It reminds me of self determination and a right to be idle.The ability to be idle and undisturbed is the proof of a coercion minimized society and the best way to maintain it. The current US ppp GNI per capita is about 54K. Per person that actually works its probably closer to about 130K per year. A lot more still if we only count the people who do work that isn’t fake or counter productive. Regardless, in theory we could give everyone in the nation 54K per year from birth for the rest of their life or about 4.3 million over their life time while freeing them for the work force. With current tech the capital to replace them in the work force with automated assets would probably be only a few years worth of that income and a few years more for the homestead. Instead we have a coercion based society full of sick people and a class or rich people many of whom seem well represented by Spears and Kim K. Some of these are funny hollow dollars but we are probably using 3x the energy we did in 1970 and producing at least that much more trash, so this retirement from the fake workforce seems as possible as it did early 70s when it was seriously suggested. Despite the higher consumption we are apparently less happy.

I am not proposing anything, Just explaining what I expect to happen.

Do you know how HTML works? More or less, there is an image tag that says “Fetch this”

You want to “only sometimes” fetch it. Technically, can you explain how this would happen?

I know how Ad Blockers work now. That won’t work with maidSAFE because maidSAFE respects allows images to be published in such a way that the network doesn’t know who owns the image. So you can’t just block known Advertisers because everything is anonymous. If you can block ads than China can block other content that is “socially unacceptable” as well – The network is engineered to not censor.

I am guessing even pixel steaming content if it can be identified could simply be blocked in volume and output for a duration to break the economic function of embedded stuff. But if its a downloaded video the Tivo like time line can be inserted. Someone who sees it the first time could simply hit the button where the ad occurred and then another when it was finished and then upload the timing sequence for everyone that through search source identified the item and even upload the stripped item with the quick edited capture that enough users through search again might up vote as unedited. I suppose there could be code that would insert random ads at random points in the playback making it harder to foil but as David said breaking the tracking part does wind the economics down quite a bit. I also think the player itself could have different fast forward increment buttons to defeat embedded ads manually. But again control over that player would be something an acceptable SAFE OS and Browser would provide.

No, that would be awful. The idea is that users should have the free choice to use an app with ads or not. If an app started to use intrusive advertisement I as a user would switch to an ad-free app.


Now that is moving to something that is more relational, which I am fine with as long as the slippery slope is seriously minded. When something relational is really working right even if the site that brings up the other product is selling, it may not bring an ad fee with it and hence not an actual ad service. If for instance the SAFE site brought up or linked to a a product from another firm that was already everything a SAFE phone should be… its actually truly useful and would likely be invited or voluntary. That is a long long way from the barrel scraping demand creation media toxifying demand creation stuff. Same with stuff like voluntary automatic shopping. If a firm like Amazon entered into a dialog with customers (opt in and not pushed) where they occasionally asked questions and got answers that were not necessarily multiple choice responses and then paired that to voluntary black boxed (anonymous to any human on looker and therefore private) analysis of their shopping habits all to provide an automatic shopping experience where staples arrived at the door automatically and novelties as well where anything the customer wanted would take in the home and the remainder being left out would be returned and come of the revolving debit- that automatic shopping experience is fine with me. Might require a special amazon box, might even be able to return opened items. Might work fine with Amazon drone delivery- maybe those drones will be partially solar (hmm) But shot gun unwanted ads that turn customers into the product and take the legitimacy out of media systems, we’ve seen where that goes.

The best litmus test for this might be who the customer is. If the site is the employee of the ad service, or the suppliers are the customers we have an extractive service that will disempower end users, it pushes. That’s where people end up with stuff they are not satisfied with and have the regretted and its spreads. If the site is always and for ever safe and clear that the end users are their total focus and their customers and that is where they make there money that is better. But usually under such arrangements the end user becomes the product or a commodity and is commoditized. The slide happens. Now Google apparently allows sponsors by how much they pay to optimized their SEO rankings. That was foreseeable. As is the pollution of youtube with more and more modal ads. Sites that provide truly interest based non distracting product info could also have a choice to turn those off, and make that opt in to begin with.