Unethical uses of the network and "safe police"

No, that would, in and of itself, be clearly unethical. I hope you can see why.

Basically, anything that occurs on the SAFE net is mere transmission of information. There are a great many people in the world that believe there are forms of information transmission that should be outlawed, and indeed many are. This is censorship, and this will, categorically, not be possible on SAFEnet, if it achieves its core design goal.

The purpose of this goal is to prevent governments, religions, corporations, and the like from controlling speech and thought in the information age, where so much of our speech, thought, memories, and history are externalized, digitized, and shared with one another.

This is the highest ethical purpose of humanity, in my opinion. We are in the final stages of a progression, as a species, to transcend our biologically-imposed limitations and someday become superintelligent immortals telepresent throughout the universe.

This vision of the future, shared by many, representing the greatest hope and potential of intelligent life, is directly at odds with many powerful interests that have contradictory goals. Such as:

  • All of humanity converting to Islam, or Christianity, or fill in the blank
  • People stop using recreational drugs, or gambling, or having casual sex
  • People report all financial transactions to the government, pay tax on them, and that tax is fairly redistributed to the poor and needy
  • Gatekeepers, Curators, Executives, and Experts decide what information is fit for the masses to receive
  • People stop being critical of the Institution of Power and all live in harmonious agreement

These unattainable, irrational, short-sighted goals which these interestsā€™ seek to achieve are terrifying to a free minded person. Yet many still seek to achieve them with vehement zeal, sacrificing greatly to further them. And censorship is a necessary tool for these interests so that their subjects can remain unaware of the alternative future that free thought, shared thought, and free speech can give them.

We are mere decades away from transcending to a form of life that remembers, in 8k resolution with perfect surround sound audio, with tactile, olfactory, and gustatory details, every second of its sensory perception. That can then share this recorded experience instantly with one person, or with all persons, private message or broadcast. Or share it 50 or 100 years after it happens. Thoughts in reflection upon the sensory experience can also be recorded and shared, instantly. And all of this will need to happen freely, with no counterpary risk or review, in a system that requires no permission. No gatekeepers, no permission slips, no censorship, no filter. Except those that people choose for themselves.

The only way to achieve this is with a decentralized information storage, retrieval, and transmission system with strong privacy protection, owned by no one, that cannot be turned off by anyone. Enter SAFEnet.

10 Likes

Its hard to follow on after some of the great points in the post by Jim Lowry. But practically and in the near term it looks like we will see the empowered public on SAFE choose a free search indexer vice a sponsored search format and that means ads and spam and paywall gateways will end up obscured or at the back increasingly delisted and sites like Pop Corn time that subject IP regimes to the after-the-fact public domain rate will come to the fore.

I think the sponsor filter dies and that means less corrupt politics and a better way to address money driven inequity.

Yes. There should be ā€œabsolutely no filtersā€ mode, but as a default some reasonable slight filter may be used. Like Google Image Search with content filter turned on by default (but easily turnable off if somebody wants).

At this level filters are not appropriate (except of anti-DoS). I mean upper layers.

Although SAFEnet concentrates on providing technical level, it should also be conserned with more high-level non-technical things as well.

Good example: I2P. The main thing that they provide is a router (the technical side, protocol). But they also maintain the list of links to eepsites which is visible on router console by default. Many of those sites are directories and indexes of other sites. To be suitable for inclusion into this registry a site must have a Terms of Service which should constrain content. Not being listed in ā€œsites directly or indirectly approved by I2P teamā€ is a very slight form of censorship.

I2P router does not have any censorship and filtering. But eepsites managed by I2P team have a content policy.

Similar way, SAFEnet will provide not only technical things, but also some content. This content is a part of a ā€œfaceā€ of SAFEnet.

One that wants freedom will find freedom. One that wants some filters and policies can stay in ā€œsafe zoneā€.

The key question is who is ā€œtheyā€?

Because in MaidSAFE there is no ā€œTheyā€

You can choose to become a ā€œTheyā€, but by default there will be no ā€œtheyā€. If there where a ā€œTheyā€ they could be responsible for the content - but since there is no they, there will be no they to hold responsible because ā€˜theyā€™ donā€™t exist.

4 Likes

I am hoping to see some type of way to filter with an app the content for my child usage of maidsafe as I really believe maidsafe will be the internet of the future, and will not just be another tor or freenet.

1 Like

@justin hmmm - the internet always has been ā€œbad placeā€ ā€¦ seriously ā€¦ besides the sites i knew and used as a child at home one of the first (i think 100) pages i visited in the web was a site a school friend of mine told me about and which i then opened in our ā€œcomputer learningā€-classes at school ā€¦ it was grotesque and really some kind of a sexual explicit horror-show ā€¦

kids really shouldnā€™t have to see such stuff when they surf the web ā€¦ and they wonā€™t if they donā€™t look for it :wink:
ā€¦ i wouldnā€™t say it has changed me to be a bad person ā€¦

also my parents never tried to limit my possibilities ā€¦ i never had limited online-time and never had to install any kind of web filter on my pc ā€¦
I never was limited and never wanted to look for this kind of stuff ā€¦ i think the point here is living the things you talk about :wink: (like jesus did - i donā€™t want to start a religious discussion - iā€™m just saying jesus told people to be nice and do good things and he himself did the same) if you do try to live your life in a good way and if you are a good role model for children theyā€™ll know what is good and what is bad ā€¦
ā€¦ i can talk with my parents about everything (really everything) they know about good and evil stuff i did and i never was afraid to tell them anything ā€¦ and that was because i know and alsways knew they trust me and i can trust them ā€¦ if they would have controlled every step i made iā€™m pretty sure our relationship wouldnā€™t be this good

of course there will be filters for maid and of course people will use them and i wonā€™t tell anybody what to do or what not to do :wink:
but iā€™m very sure that i myself wonā€™t filter my web anytime soon and i wonā€™t limit the possibilities for anybody else (as long as their grades are ok ; )

2 Likes

ā€¦or theyā€™d go to Hellā€¦lol :smiley:

1 Like

Iā€™m not sure Jesus is supposed to have said that. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Iā€™m pretty sure youā€™re right, translations are more around ā€œHadesā€ or ā€œgraveā€ - its been twisted by the religions/churches to scare kids into conformity I think.
He also couldnā€™t have ā€œliterallyā€ mentioned Hell as he spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or something didnā€™t he - dunno?
Actually thereā€™s a funny story about a Governor of Texas who was complaining about the idea to translate the Bible into Spanish for schools:
ā€œIf English was good enough for Jesus, then itā€™s good enough for meā€ā€¦lol
PS:

2 Likes

Iā€™m not sure, just isnā€™t something I associate with what I have picked up about teachings attributed to Jesus.

I would substitute ā€œpeopleā€ for ā€œreligions/churchesā€ in your quote above. Forgetting this ends up labelling all religious people etc as one, which is the same kind of thinking that gives rise to ā€œbeliever/non-believerā€ judgments, heaven v hell etc. Same with Dawkins continually identifying religion with an old testament Abrahamic God figure. The fact he, and I, see those texts as to a large extent made-up (by people) doesnā€™t undermine all religious people or the basis for spiritual practices that lie outside Dawkinsā€™ brand of atheism.

But I digress! OMGā€¦ better stick to SAFE web app researchā€¦

1 Like

Mmmmā€¦not really getting thisā€¦youā€™re right about the Jesus thing, I was referring to references in both Bible versions about Hell/Hades/Graves etc, rather than teachings of Jesus - my fault, I was unclear.
The bit I donā€™t get is the substituting bit or why it ends up labelling all religious people. There are literally thousands of different denominations just within Christiany itself (Churches) teaching various things - all made up by people, so not really seeing the distinction.

He really doesnā€™t from what Iā€™ve read and the quote I gave the other day clearly started with ā€œThe god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fictionā€- no mention of religious people.
I can say quite categorically that neither I nor Dawkins would ā€œundermine all religious peopleā€ or lump them together
He, like I would critcise the Religions themselves, not the religious people.
:smiley:
.

My point is that: it is people who do these things. Thereā€™s no such entity as a religion/church, so we need to recognise that it is people, and within any religion/church, there are many different people who interpret/identify with their religion/church, or spirituality differently. I know its ā€œshorthandā€, but labelling and classification creates problems for anyone doing it, which Iā€™m suggesting happens both inside ā€œreligions/churchesā€ and those talking about them.

I donā€™t follow Dawkins much because I think heā€™s full of shit (on religion), and its because when I do hear him, heā€™s always going on about religion as if it was all ā€œThe God of the Old Testamentā€. His work on the selfish gene was great, in that it turned our perception on its head. Its shortcoming was I think that he saw that as ā€œtheā€ way to see evolution, rather than another perspective. IMO he does the same with religion.

Anyway, Iā€™m taking us way off topic here. We should move this if you want to continue, but really I donā€™t want to get into debating the validity of these opinions (of mine), Iā€™m just clarifying them because you asked. They are just my opinions, I donā€™t claim they are right. (I donā€™t think anyone is ā€œrightā€, not anyone completely wrong).

2 Likes

Very glad to hear you articulate it this way. Itā€™s exact same point Iā€™ve been making about the equally ā€œno such entity asā€ government.

2 Likes

Those are nice words, but it would be nice if you really did thatā€¦ You always want to bring my faith into random conversations then criticize me for my faith, although you are absolutely ignorant of it.

I do not believe anything you accuse me of believing but because i have the label you feel you know what I should think. And you are always wrong. So if you mean what you say, please start behaving in such a manner. Pretend you donā€™t know what my faith is, Because truely you donā€™tā€¦

Anyway, Way off topicā€¦

I do think it is funny that when you engineer a censorship proof platform everyone immediately tries to engineer the censorship back in.

2 Likes

Lolā€¦this has all got contentious really quickly again, hasnā€™t it? :smiley:

Iā€™d say a Govt is indeed an entity (group of people), based on a particular interpretation of a particular political ideology - ie Conservatism or Liberalism etc.
Iā€™d say a Church/Denomination is also indeed an entity (group of people) based on a particular Religious ideology - ie Christianity or Judaism.

All these ideologies are just ideas and it is just as legitimate to criticise a Religious idea, as a political one - however much people may complain about it.
To distinguish between the 2 things is to claim that certain ideas should not be criticised, or have some special protection.
To claim that criticising a religious idea in some way criticises all religious people is the same as saying criticising Consevatism is criticising all Conservatives - itā€™s exactly the same thing.
The fact that both Govts and Churches are made up of people would appear irrelevant to me.
As to Spirituality, this appears to be one of those words that has a completely different meaning to whoever you ask and therefore has little meaning to me.
As an aside, I could say Iā€™ve personally had at least 2 ā€œSpiritualā€ experiences - neither of which I would ascribe to anything super-natural.
The 1st would be during a week long binge on LSD and the 2nd whilst munching on a beef sandwich heavily laced with around 100 ā€œmagic mushroomsā€.
In both these cases I know exactly what I ascribe it to - the chemical changes within the organ between my 2 ears, involving LSD or Psilocybin.
Advances in Neuro- Science would seem to support what I attribute the cause of my ā€œpersonal experienceā€ to be. :smiley:

A government has a set of text by which it is chartered, and people interpret those texts to their liking.

Religions have texts and teachings that they people interpret according to their liking.

There is a similarity thereā€¦

Courts can read the text through the lens of their worldview and interpet what they choose to interpret.

There may be ways to cryptographically secure the interpretations in such manner that the laws are interpreted closer to the writers intent if the writers intent is clearly denoted and timestamped into the blockchain or something of that natureā€¦

1 Like

This is the issue. So we will not agree, and you may not comprehend, why I suggested you make those substitutions. We see the world through difference lenses :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yes, I think this is definitely the one area we have totally different viewpoints - weā€™ll have to just agree to disagree. :smiley:

2 Likes

@vi0oss you stated :ā€œSimilar way, SAFEnet will provide not only technical things, but also some content. This content is a part of a ā€œfaceā€ of SAFEnet.ā€

In my opinion Google scaled in large part because it didnā€™t have such a face. Yahoo scaled as well but its characteristic shit. Of course the ambition with SAFE goes way beyond scale.

Are you suggesting the front page would start off with SAFE related stuff and then devolve under bribes and a desire to look like paid for shit into FaceBook links, LDS ads and Fox news and State propaganda news- because cash-in is not sell out?
I dont think SAFE will ever be sponsored in any way and if it started, a non sponsored for of which there be many will abort it. Yahoo will finally get flushed too.

I think the best way to approach this would be a black/white listing app which has been discussed previously in other threads.

Having an app that allows users of the network to suggest/group content via consensus and then have people opt in or out of the filtered groups would seem to address the content concernsā€¦unless I am missing why something such as this would not be feasible for public data/sites on the networkā€¦

2 Likes