We do know exactly how media will respond. We have a sponsored media. It exists to serve money based power, a kind of power that is illegitimate on its face. Safe is a threat to sponsorship (censorship/bribery) and so SAFE is a threat to money based power and therefoer a threat to sponsored media’s reason for being.
If SAFE is successful the media (sponsorship) will attack it harder than anything it has ever attacked before because SAFE through transparency will mean the end of the engine of inequity that is sponsorship. If the tech works the royalists will be fighting for the life of their injustice like nothing they have ever experienced and they will lose. The tech will tell the story of everything they do accurately and why they do it as they do it. It takes away their room for manipulation. Its game over for money enslavement BS.
But we will need to widely disseminate it on super cheap purpose built verified hardware as soon as possible and give it its own network as soon as possible, it can’t stay on the sublet toll road the internet has become. We need something that they can’t jam and can’t switch off.
You can see that but to the person who uses bribery wouldn’t having anonymous money be one of the best ways to bribe people? I think you should really look at both sides. Yes SAFE Network can have beneficial uses but then it can be abused just as easily. It’s a double edged sword which wealthy elites can use to censor through bribery.
If someone with money doesn’t like what you have to say, they can make a few emails, send a few Safecoins to your higher ups, and now you’re muzzled.
We already have in place the system you describe, but we’ve never had the other edge of the sword. They aren’t even remotely equal, they are different weapons. The truth is the truth its the truth and we’ve never had it before or even a good approximation of it. The paid lies just get discovered and add to the record.
That’s what they say about all new tech. We don’t need mainstream adoption. All we need is to hit 10% population adoption and acceptance and then we’ll become the new normal, that’s it. 10% is the tipping point.
It is also not ready to be adopted, so mainstream promotion is not even desirable. It is being promoted now to those who can see the value of what it will be. Adoption will come when it is functioning and has killer apps that people want. Privacy, Security and Freedom may well not be what drives it into mass adoption. But it won’t hurt. And right now, those are the points that drive the kind of people who will want to pitch in, and give it steam.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it’s not a competition between the SAFE Network and others coming at the scene from different angles. Mores the better if others are offering similar/competing services and technologies.
My argument is mainly for decentralized rating such as collaborative filtering for publicly shared content, so that content can be approved of or disapproved of, so that there is curation. It’s not exactly control of the content but more curation of what the default search engine would show, or some sort of warning sign that certain content is not curated.
It is already a situation that anyone can upload anything to some cloud somewhere, but on the ordinary Internet people aren’t forced to see it. People shouldn’t be made to see stuff or come into contact with content they do not wish to come into contact with, so this is both a major cosmetic concern and a PR concern.
If a person uses SAFE Network for private storage then it’s not the same as using SAFE Network to broadcast something to the public. Anything in public in my opinion can be moderated by the public, but anything in private is truly private.
The thing is there is no “default search engine” as far as I know.
[quote=“luckybit, post:50, topic:4824”]
If a person uses SAFE Network for private storage then it’s not the same as using SAFE Network to broadcast something to the public. Anything in public in my opinion can be moderated by the public, but anything in private is truly private.[/quote]
There is also no “broadcast to the public”. I believe that a big business on the SAFE Network will be apps which deal with aggregation, curation and publicity of content. Such will build reputation but will not get too much censorship control because their content will be easy to clone public data maps from and then add censored content that particular publics want.
And that is one potential problem with SAFE. With no search engine how do you find relevant information, how do you find curated content? How do you know a file is what it claims to be without having to access it to find out?
SAFE Network is going to need these apps you speak of.
That was the reason they were giving for the current internet to never go anywhere: “Nobody will be able to find anything.”
I see no reason why we can’t have public data crawlers on SAFE. All they do on the current internet is follow links to links to links and note what they find. I see no reason that a crawler couldn’t do that on the SAFE network and aggregate what it finds, make it searchable, etc. This could all be made available through various apps.
I couldn’t do it, but I have no doubt that this is an opportunity that will be jumped on early.
Jeez! Have we not already been through this before, and yet here we are 500 posts later.
SAFE is or rather it will be a network infrastructure with a in-built economic system. Pure and simple. As devs have mentioned countless times, once live, we will be in control. If we see shit falling apart or going in an undesirable direction, it is OUR job to mitigate it. Having daddy David and his team jump in to save us from ourselves encourages dependency and an ironic degree of centralization. Honestly, I respect and even go as far as to say that I admire the efforts of Maidsafe, but the sooner we can eliminate our dependency from them and design a decentralized community federated development system or something equally effective, the better. Instead of spending your limited time on this planet trying to stop and a train you believe is on it’s way to derailment, why not help rebuild the tracks before it reaches that point. Gather financial resources, people, and knowledge. Create and spearhead a campaign that highlights the importance of these technologies in relation to our personal freedoms and our rights to unfettered knowledge. Remind them that while peering into everyone lives indiscriminately grants relatively minuscule advantages to civil security, increased physical vigilance and creative approaches not only compensate but stand to strengthen law enforcement techniques. Like strengthening one sense as a consequence of losing or dampening another. Striking first is the crucial play here. Posting here regardless to how fruitless is easier though.
On the topic of search engines specifically. Search engine are likely already in development by community members. No need to waste precious resources and time building what is already in the works. The most popular of them will be those that cater to the vast majority which means curation of extreme content. A “good” integrated search engine will do nothing to the quell the mis or inflammatory information spread by those who hope to breed fear and reluctance to learn the truth and open their minds. Most people I know wouldn’t even visit the Tor project site for fear of various things as if they would immediately be bombarded with illegal material. Preconception abatement is the current battlefront that IMO matters the most in regards to these techs. You’re clearly non-daft with a great respect for these technologies. Take your love and passion and go viral. Speak to the world in a clever and attractive way. Polish your charisma, crowed fund and piggy back off of those with a high level of popularity. Blowing wisps of air at the beast does nothing but cool or potentially irritate it. Infect it then symbiotically cleanse it. Good luck.
It’s really that simple. Governments can simply ban all anonymous cryptocurrencies. Criminal charges could be distributed to anyone caught using it.
It might sound silly now but the war on drugs resulted in generations of poor minorities in prison, and then you have Kim Dot Com and the whole copyright wars.
Russia seems to be the first country to push for a ban but if SAFE Network does work as intended then the bans will probably spread. Activists might be willing to go to prison and be martyrs for the cause but the vast majority of people aren’t activists.
A false statement on several levels. First of all, there is a recommendation to ban them, nothing has been decided yet. Secondly, even if crypto-currencies are banned, one can still browse the SAFE Network content without ever touching SafeCoin.
Bans are not that simple, it can differ greatly between different countries. Even for Russia is the question is not simple obviously, different Russian actors from within and without the government influence this, and they have different views on such a ban and also sometimes change their mind.
The issue with Bitcoin and most other crypto-currencies is that their primary use case is circumvention of the state’s power. SafeCoin’s primary use case is data security, which practically all governments acknowledge as legitimate and desirable, at least where their own (and their country’s businessess’) data is concerned. This may influence their position towards SAFE in particular.
And drugs is still used en masse, and copyright is still breached en masse. You’re also focusing on the USA here, in many european countries there is hardly a war on drugs and no generations of poor minorities are in prison due to such a war. A better comparison would be to Tor, which was initially developed by the US Navy and isn’t banned in any Western country as far as I know, nor in Russia so far either.
That being said, bans are not unthinkable and may stifle growth of SAFE. I do think that over time we’d persevere though.
A blatant disregard of social valuation! Basically telling us that only our rulers can feed the pack. Any perceived value on our part is null! We need to fight this shit hard! Russia is a major player in the world scene capable of spreading political practice. This to me this is a big deal regardless to the speculated likelihood of a strong negative impact.
It sounds that simple, but let’s forget Russia and America where the law is interpretted / applied arbitrarily, and consider how it would work in areas with a more robust and independent legal system (a moot point, but please allow that point for the sake of discussion!).
The reason I don’t think this is as simple as it sounds is because the law finds it very hard to a) ban technology without making lots of good and useful stuff illegal, so instead they tend to ban certain uses, and b) it may be difficult to define cryptocurrency - so again they will prefer a).
So, what do you mean when you say “ban anonymous cryptocurrencies”? Can you think of a law that would make sense and could be enforced, and would this apply to SAFE Netowork, and might there be ways of mitigating its impact?
I would guess that it would be possible to legislate against users doing certain things, but not to make the network itself illegal. The question would then be, how much any feasible and plausible bans would affect SAFE? But first we have to come up with some plausible ban scenarios, and I haven’t seen one yet.
The primary use case for activists. That isn’t a mainstream use case though.
While cryptocurrency hasn’t been banned yet in Russia it is clear that Russia is taking the steps to ban it. The wording in it also would include Safecoin.
And it’s pretty draconian too.
Governments don’t always care. They banned drugs in America including marijuana.
It’s not comparable to Tor unless you want to market SAFE Network to intelligence agencies and the US Navy. Tor is really a special case in technology but it’s not clear that SAFE Network is going to be in the same position.
Also China probably will ban SAFE Network, and many governments do not want anonymous currency at all. In fact I would say no government wants anonymous currency because it would corrupt democracy or threaten it.
