Let’s imagine, tongue in cheek, ( I mean imagination running wild here for the hell of it so don’t knee jerk.) a bulletproof Safenet has been launched.Those opposed to it’s existence may not have said much before the launch because they were sleeping or decided not to attract attention to it but now they de-ploy their “fear” missiles.
The “what about the children?” ploy. Never fails.
The “What about the funding and records for every cent donated/spent?” ploy. Mention the patents and cast doubt on funding sources/expenditures/remaining balances.
The “Query qualifications and character of dev teams” ploy. Tarnish by implication. Use techniques applied to Putin. Half truthing is particularly effective for this. (Who cares if they did nothing wrong. Just suggest they did. That’s enough for a lazy public who will not research and who trust their media etc etc)
The “This tech is flawed” ploy. It’s far from secure or anonymous lol. Darken it’s name at every opportunity. If it took 10 years to launch they probably don’t know what they’re doing anyway. What’s wrong with the existing Internet? It’s not even finished yet.
The “This tech is a threat to national security” ploy. The network is a haven for terrorists. It must be stopped. ( This presents an excellent opportunity to reassure the public that state agencies would never avail of such a network to bring democracy to some poor unfortunate sovereign state or entrap low hanging fruit or potential recruits.)
Just to be sure, send the SWAT team to Troon and the other nests. (That word does conjure up powerful images doesn’t it? Nest of… etc. A bit like “ring …” Such words almost do the job for you. Joy. No need to present any real evidence.) This could be a highly publicised global, coordinated effort involving agencies from many countries etc etc blah blah. Liberal use of battering rams, drama, half truth,speculation and never mind about keeping people up to date ie. that nothing was found and everyone went home to a cup of hot chocolate. (Consult BBC on ways to accomplish this). Seize lots of computers, imply that material of an undesirable nature might be on the equipment but never get into specifics (because you can’t), extrapolate out and juxtaposition with other news items. eg sincere, hardworking mother of 5 with deeply rooted moral and religious convictions decided to blow herself and dozens of others to smithereens (gloss over why she might have done it). Just keep the focus on the connection between the “act” and the network and/or Putin. Throw in that a third cousin of the uncle of a man that a friend of Putin’s sister bumped into 20years ago in a nearby train station may have been spotted in the area. That should do it. Clearly, Putin set up Safenet.
The "There’s a backdoor."ploy. Good use, bad use. (An unknown agency managed to compromise one of the core developers who provided the backdoor as a temporary aid for Western “good guy” illegal honeypot stings, asset recruitment, high profile low hanging fruit arrests. Possibly some suggestion it was a Russian agency wanting to enhance Russian expansion plans? Can’t hurt.)
The “The network is 90% criminal activity.” ploy. (The accuracy of 90% will not be questioned). The new Darknet Silk Road. Trillions and trillions of CP images and guns and drugs and ----------(insert name of feared/desired item/behaviour). Why not say trillion when you know that nobody will challenge the number because they can’t without researching it and researching it is a criminal offense or could get you killed so nobody can argue with you. Win win, yay! You can even imply that there are trillions and gezillions more that have not yet been unearthed. Go for it.
Lean on ISPs to choke it. Legislate (or at least launch debates and enquiries).Lean on firmware and hardware makers to build in little “I’m telling mommy” devices.
Whatever happens, Do Not Under Any Circumstances allow or encourage individual members of society to actually take responsibility for their own actions. Just let them play at it in ways that are narrowly defined and harmless.
On a more serious note, Safenet could confront us with ourselves in a way nothing else ever has. A global mirror. Many things will be entirely truthful and pleasant. Others, equally truthful, but unpleasant and offensive, to some. There will also be manipulated information, propaganda, half truths, lies, under researched nonsense, researched nonsense, criminality, kindness, greed and all manner of manifestations of what it is to be human. It will all be there and every individual on the planet with access to the network will be able to take a look or not.(Most things have off switches these days). Some will choose to look at pics of cats. Some will want to look in dark corners. The point is they will have the freedom and the responsibility and the consequences. We have never been there before so nobody knows how it will turn out.
I try to live by “do no harm” and even try to do some good.
I want the jackboots and shackles of :
political correctness (we cannot arrest that representative of that personal belief system who is illegally telling his followers they must kill any woman who commits adultery because to do so would be to discriminate against him )
and moralism (you must think and do as I say because I’m right, so there! and there’s more of us than you and the authorities will turn a blind eye.)
and dogma
and monetisation of me
OFF MY NECK…
and the list goes on.
Well, we all have lists and they’re all different (mine isn’t). I hope Safenet will flourish uncensored, explode myths and taboos and enable global cooperation and freedom of expression. It will be a great challenge.
Just some thoughts.
Three thoughts
If they go that far, why not just make it outright illegal to use calling it a terrorists tool, and save themselves a lot of effort in doing a number of those things listed.
Its all been mentioned in topics already discussed
and lastly I look at history and use projects that have any similarity and see what happened. Not much, and SAFE is very much unknown to even those in the know.
BTW the “think of the children” has lost a lot of string since its use and failure in trying to promote filtering/censorship systems. Also the media giants have used it with little success. Years ago it got you anything from the politicians, but now its a passed useby phrase with both politicians and people who can pull strings. Just ask Senator Conroy in the Australian Parliament who wore it out in Australia a couple of years ago, and now is mocked for his use of it to support censorship of the internet in Australia,
Point taken about what history shows us. They made drugs and prostitution illegal.
Ah well if it’s all been mentioned before then we should leave it at that.
The “think of the children” thing since the early 80’s has spawned an entire industry including secret courts, SWAT teams with battering rams doing 04.00 am raids and an entire spectrum of professionals who are now acting as reserve police evidence gatherers and who are effectively gagged by fear of confronting dominant narratives or don’t even realise they are in the matrix. For people unfortunate enough to come under the scrutiny of “the protectors” the sting has not yet lost it’s potential for destruction. Maybe Safenet can give people with experience of such issues from a personal and professional perspective a chance to set the balance straight without fear of becoming unemployed or ostracised… It’s just one example of situations in which dogma and unchallenged narrative can cause horrific injustice. I’m sure you can list many others. The point being the good Safenet can do to make the world a better place for a lot of people. I know you already agree with that. 
I don’t believe an authority should not exist. I believe in distribution of the power of authority from the singleton to the crowd in the most intelligent way so that the combined knowledge and brain power of the crowd combined with machine intelligence can self govern, curate, or set rules and norms.
The point is in order to have a coherent culture, a useful value network, you require curation as a function. The fact that SAFE Network will start out not having curation is going to cause it to not be useful for the vast majority of people who aren’t cypherpunks, who aren’t hackers, who aren’t freedom fighters, etc. If you are making a network which entire segments of the population can’t use or wont find useful then you’ve already lost.
Whether you’re a cop or judge or lawyer or politician, the fact is there are millions of people who are, and these millions of people need to find utility in SAFE Network just as much as the software geek, or the anti censorship activist. So how do you make it useful for everyone? Curation is the key because then everyone can find what is relevant to their self interest.
@luckybit
Yes, and this can be built on top as one or more protocols or applications as I described. And if those prove useful, they will be adopted. So I still don’t understand why you think this must be built in at the network level. I realise it could, but I see no reason it has to, and good reasons for keeping it separate (for example, to make it easier for multiple models to emerge which are suited to different situations).
This is a topic I gave much thought to a few months ago - how to create open protocols for user driven curation. It seemed extremely complex and I think would be very difficult to come up with one model that works well for every situation, and even if it was I think this would require a long period of experimentation - and we should not delay the network for this purpose.
If you think this can be done I’d be very interested in your ideas because I didn’t get very far on my own. But on a separate topic I think 
I totally agree with this,
I also agree with @luckybit that not having curation may hinder the initial network adoption, but I think the initial adoption of SAFE will be for backends of apps, which many users will not even realize is happening and will not need a network level curation. SAFE will get its momentum from data being stored on it, and having app/corporate level users will do a lot more than individual users to get that initial data on SAFE…
And I never said anything about “network level” curation. Happy being is debating a strawman. I say we need curation whether it’s at a higher level, an app, it has to be released at the same time Safecoin is in my opinion.
And I don’t like the pay the producer idea. I think curation should determine who gets paid and not an algorithm.
I don’t think curation should be at “network level” whatever that means just like I don’t think pay the producer should be at network level. These are smart contracts while the network should be neutral to everything and amoral.
Having people get paid by curation would imply it is coded in at the network level. Otherwise, unless I am missing something, If i do not have the curation app or option installed, I would be unable to get paid.
So for example, I build an app that only uses SAFE as a backend and does not require curation. I would still like to get paid Safecoin regardless of what third party options I have installed…and if people can pay for promoted results and such that would put everyone else at a disadvantage for payments unless there is a really clever payment scheme set up which may be possible…hmmm…interesting idea for sure…
[quote=“happybeing, post:45, topic:8624”]
Yes, and this can be built on top as one or more protocols or applications as I described. And if those prove useful,
[/quote]The problem is it isn’t built or even mentioned in the roadmap and it’s a critical part of any ecosystem.
If it can be built when will it be built so people can use SAFE Network and find value?
Curation could be app level and not network level. No one says one algorithm or one curation method should rule them all. You can have the network be blind to everything but once you get money involved it’s not the same anymore. Safecoin changes things when it’s treated as a currency and not just legally or philosophically, but also culturally.
When people get paid for content then you require curation otherwise all the issues mentioned in the OP not only could exist but it could become a business to extort, to ransom, to threaten, and without curation there would be no way for the network not to favor whatever happens to be popular for whatever reason.
Popularity isn’t the same as relevance.
lol this discussion is such a waste of time. but let me chime in anyway. stir the pot up a bit more.
i’m sure in some islamic country they are going to be against 98% of the content on MAID.
so what… if they catch you looking at cartoons defiling one of their prophets they will still want to chop you head off or blow up your car, this just makes it less likely that they catch you doing that.
so is that negative PR? b/c in “the West” and in China anything that eats away at Islam is seen as a good things, where as in the Islamic world they go crazy over it.
I think it’s a great tool for getting out information to people who are under the cloud of a religious patriarchy that adds little value to the world.
of course it could go the other way around their could be anti-American hate speech telling people to go blow themselves up and kill all the Christians, Jews, Buddhist, and anyone else. But it’s not like they don’t push that stuff out without impunity as it is.
curation is a stupid idea. it just means majority rule, we know how that went in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s…
Join another location where you are part of the majority. There isn’t only one majority. But to say you don’t want any curation is to say you don’t care if content is relevant or useful.
This is where people got the idea you wanted it at the SAFE network level. And you said that
And you also talked about a curation layer in SAFE itself.
So no wonder people said you wanted curation in SAFE itself
APPs run on top of the SAFE network and use the SAFE network. The SAFE network is the core protocols, vaults, core messaging and SAFEcoin.
So I gather now you are actually wanting curation done by applications that also use teh SAFE network, but are not actually the “SAFE network”.
I don’t want any curation. There, I’ve said it.
The truth is, I am 100% confident that I will not come across any content that will make me think “I wish we had curation”.
Why the hell would I want someone to curate-away something I may want to hear/see/read/download?
Even if I found something objectionable, at most I would think “What the hell was I thinking when I visited the site that links to here?”
Having said that I don’t have anything against people joining app or community-driven auto-censorship networks.
And what does all this have to do with undeletable data? Who the heck knows.
Curation and censorship are not the same. Also curation isn’t necessarily done by “people”. The purpose of curation is to create a minimum standard of quality for the information you access. Why are there spam filters and search engines? People don’t want raw data or raw information, they want information valuable to their self interest.
If you want to call it self directed censorship instead of curation you can do that but the fact is that filtering is a necessary mechanism for the vast majority of information consumers. Whether this be collaborative filtering, or done by machine intelligence, or you have to do it yourself by literally looking at every piece of public information on the SAFE Network, it has to be done.
If people want that, as you say, someone will surely make an app for that.
If you agree with the idea that the supply will be created to satisfy this demand, why are you asking for it (and hijacking the topic)?
Maybe we’re talking different things by “curation”. I’m sure you’ve used search engines, which are a form of curation. So is the list of topics on the front page of the forum.
Towards the other end of the spectrum a news website is curation, so is the nightly TV news etc, and so is my homepage with my favourite books of all time, the links panel on my WordPress blog, my twitter feed etc etc
There will be curation on SAFEnetwork, not built in, but layered in top - by algorithms, organisations, individuals… and I hope more and more by groups. For example, crowdsourced like facebook and twitter, but without so much centralised corruption and distortion. I’m hopeful that Project Decorum will make advances easier in this direction by creating some reusable protocols and libraries. @Al_Kafir please note.
Did you read the OP? I’m on topic.