Will fake news be more of a problem with SAFE or less?

From Wired magazine:
But now, we have a new normal. Manipulating search results today seems more like an invasion than a joke. As the October 1 massacre in Las Vegas unfolded, Google displayed “news” results from rumor mills like 4Chan, and Facebook promulgated rumors and conspiracy theories, sullying the service on which, according to Pew Research, 45 percent of American adults get their news. Meanwhile, the rapid-fire nature of Twitter led users to pass along false information about missing people in the aftermath.

All of these cases signify the central place a number of digital services have staked out in our lives. We trust our devices: We trust them to surface the correct sources in our information feeds, we trust them to deliver our news, and we trust them to surface the opinions of our friends. So the biggest and most influential platforms falling prey to manipulations upsets that trust—and the order of things.

If SAFE becomes widely adopted, eclipsing even Google, Facebook and Twitter in popularity, do you think these two issues of fake news and manipulating search results will be even more problematic? Do you think the time will ever come when the majority of people around the world sees more value in regulating or minimizing misinformation (I know, who decides whether it’s misinformation?) than in protecting freedom of expression and anonymity?


Technology moves quicker than people easily adjust.

They’ll always be conservatives to bring up the rear but they will always lose out to the more forward thinking; younger; and more mature groups in society. Obviously the balance of those different groups fluxes over time but still progress marches on.

The chatter about fake news is just a symptom, following from the rate at which the form of news has changed. People get wise to it - even if it takes a generation… and despite the media indulging fallacies, the facts ring true and are plain to see regardless of the packaging.

Those with an agenda make more of the messenger than the message but in time perhaps ‘fake’ news can help mature the audience; so, then the message becomes the focus more often - then perhaps more rational debate and considered reaction might follow.

What people might start to question, is the amount of ‘fake’ that is generated on the back of taxes for political reasons - alsorts of excuses - little evils for the greater good and other fallacies, which are most toxic, yet seem all the fashion.

So, in answer to your query, SAFE is a route to defense against the stupid. Such moronic that wants to control and to see regulating or minimizing information, will be frustrated perhaps by clearer communication that they cannot frustrate and interfere with.


The amount of actual fake news that has been being served up by the “real” news sources has gotten so bad that it’s hard to think of how it could be worse. People generally agree, I think, as witness the slide in viewership and revenue of the traditional news sources, replaced in people’s attention by internet sources, from which people sort out their opinions according to how careful and rational they are, modified by what the “want” the world to look like.

I think that SAFE will just continue to perfect the trend that is already coming via the current internet, minus the big-data oversight and snooping, predictive suggestions, etc.

Some people will always want to be under the shepherd’s rod, and that’s fine. But the ability for real private, secure and free communication existing in the world will have positive effect, even on the sheep.


Do the facts always ring true . . . in this age of exponential technological change, or have most of us fallen into the trap of allowing our perspective, our prejudices to determine truth before substantial analysis?

1 Like

I don’t really see why SAFEnet should impact this one way or another. All that changes, I think, is the structural removal of the ability to censor someone else’s data or content (in this case “fake” or “real” news). So long as you don’t live in an authoritarian society, there is no instituted method or practice for censoring fake news today. Tomorrow, with Safenet, governmental organizations would forfeit the ability to censor anyone. You could ask the question: what about hate speech or slander? Well, I guess people would have to use the channels that are open today to pursue legal action if they can identify the source of the content. If not, well, it is what it is, which isn’t much different from the way things are now, I think. My two cents.


The difference, as I see it, is that today one can ferret out the source of the content if he has the resources, time and inclination. With SAFE, that probably will not be true.

That’s true, but how likely are people to trust an uncited source? If they do, they get what they get, I think. You might say, well what if they pretend to be someone else who is more reputable? Well, that gets tricky, but I’d hope that collective wisdom (aka crowdsourced knowledge) would prevail. Not a perfect solution, but also not too different from today except it would be harder to track down the culprit. At the end of the day, I think we all bear the responsibility to verify the validity of what we hear, see and read. Doing so, I think, is simultaneously getting easier and more difficult as content and access proliferates.

Yes, that indeed, is the problem. I think most people have resorted to depending on one primary news source, or maybe two; one local and one national/international, and ignoring the others. I don’t know if this is healthy or not. Most of us probably just choose a source that reinforces our existing belief system. Probably will not change with SAFE.

99 percent of the news are FAKE.

Internet has gone into void. I used to think internet was the best. Now, it’s all washed up nonsense. In fact, internet is all about shitposting memes. It no longer serves a good purpose of educational uses because the left had to ruin it by propping up fake news.

Safenet will make it even worse than ever. Sure it’s a great technology but it’ll continue to push FAKE news narrative.

The bible explicitly said do not trust the words that comes out of man’s mouth. For they are fallible, and full of turds. This is pretty much the principle everybody should strive for.

1 Like

yeah the big problem today is that the big corporations own the news outlets. They don’t have the same power over the current internet, and certainly can’t have the same influence over the decentralized SAFE Network.

So it’s all steps towards more individual empowerment and safer, truer systems. Even Reddit is a good step down that path. Individuals posting and rating news. Can see that today, hope it continues to grow.

I forsee some of the future SAFE news systems having similar models, and with the barrier to entry (and profit) from genuine, verified (ranked / rated by the public) news being so much lower on SAFE, then competition / free markets will ensure the best and truest news rises to the top :slight_smile: in theory at least. But at least there will be many factors pushing it in that direction. No more Trump Dumps :smiley: or at least they wont be as successful

I’m afraid this will be true and I foresee the day when most people will laugh when they think about the time when they relied on the Internet (or SafeNet), social media and large media to deliver their news. What will take their place? I don’t know but usually where there is a need a solution materializes. I suspect the solution will be served up by new technology, like most everything else. Will take many years, no doubt. In the meantime we will be doing some suffering.


It’ll be the perfect fake news platform.

There’s uber-anonymity, multiple redundant backups, easy publishing limited, low cost of entry.

Wouldn’t surprise me if it attracts idiots just as quickly as cool people. A bit like how smartphone tech has spread - it doesn’t discriminate based on agenda.

1 Like

“Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master”

If censorship is not an option then we have to learn to separate truth from fiction ourselves. Human beings are stupid. We are too stupid to be free without causing issues, but we cause even worse problems when we allow one group of stupid people to decide what another group of stupid people can say, do or hear.


This on Twitter by @RogueNASA:

People ask us what it’s like to work for #NASA. This is what it’s like. via @Sephko


Watch some modern news and study it. Separate out how much is fact and how much is opinion. The fact is usually the minority component.

The opinion component usually just reflects whatever agenda and bias the broadcaster/publisher desires.


I don’t mean to get controversial, but some one say the bible is one of the original fake news stories! :wink:


Yes, most people don’t really study the news they are consuming, especially broadcast news. It’s especially important to think about which topics were chosen for broadcast and how much time was spent on each. The agenda and bias parts might be unavoidable, after all someone has to put together the daily schedule.


Safe net also provides a way to publish an identity which is irrefutable. If a source wishes to be trusted, they will use this feature.


At least today we don’t have to bridge the language translation barriers that biblical interpretation involves.

I suppose Safe will allow as much as the regular web to publish false facts as if it were truth.
Mainstream media companies, advertisers, politicians, journalists, will probably keep doing so, like they do on the regular web. Individuals will, too. In my opinion, no big changes here.

What will probably be different is that it will be more difficult to manipulate search results in order to shape the reality that is served to users, because as data harvesting will be much harder, if not impossible, it will be harder to determine who users are based on their browsing history, cookies, Ip, habits, profiles…etc etc

In this sense, I think Safe should help us to trust that we are served is not made up or tailored for us as individuals, and that the intentions of the author are respected. Up to us to choose what source we read. Just like it is the case for newspapers and books.