You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Voice" (MEOS) Announcement ... Much Ado About Nothing
You've invested 30k USD in steem, it doesn't matter when, bidbots start appearing, you see that you cannot really compete in making curation rewards by voting organically and flagging them is futile, what would you do? Are you gonna power down? Will you stay?
Posted using Partiko Android
@baah,
The system has to change so that there are Rules of Conduct that prevent cheating. The problem with corruption, of any kind, is that it disadvantages the people who try to conduct themselves in a manner which is honest and honorable. The solution, however, is not for everyone to say, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." That inevitably magnifies the problem and destroys the entire system.
We need Men of Good Conscience to find their courage.
I will stay if STEEM/Steemit makes the necessary reforms. If it doesn't, I will leave the MOMENT a "viable alternative" presents itself. Voice, as discussed, is not such a "viable alternative."
Make no mistake, I LOVE STEEM/Steemit and I want it to be the crypto-backed social media platform that dominates. But I refuse to be treated like a fool. My never-ending harangue is an effort to rile people up so that they start DEMANDING reforms.
To inspire the Silent Majority to stop being Silent. The way STEEM/Steemit presently operates is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
It's an uphill battle ... but as you may have noticed, I possess and inexhaustible repository of words and an ability, and willingness, to use them.
Quill
The problem with preventing cheating is that it costs everyone. If we want anonymity, if we want freedom of expression, if we want transparency, if we want to avoid creating unnecessary positions of power, we have to trade a portion of each of those for us to prevent cheating. The tradeoffs will in turn, change the very nature of steem as a decentralized, transparent, censorship proof platform. The better alternative is hindering the cheats, making cheating costly, so that cheating does not profit, as it does now. Implementing rules of conduct doesn't do anything without a way to enforce the rules. That position of enforcement needs to be trustless, so that it cannot be used to make the problem much worse than cheating.
Posted using Partiko Android
@baah,
With respect, mate, no we don't. People are making this out to be a lot harder than it is. I wrote a Series of Articles about how to reform the blockchain. It's actually relatively easy and there's no loss of anything. In any event, without reforms, there won't be a blockchain at all.
The Whole Series links to this post:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@quillfire/central-premise-and-proposals-a-series-about-fixing-steemit-part-4
We've got to get away from buzzwords and start talking about how to create something that actually WORKS. We get no points for building something that doesn't function.
Quill
Before I dive into your proposal I want to emphasize what I was getting at, what works and for who is predicated on how it works.
The premise that downvoting is demonetization is censorship is not correct because nobody is prevented or suppressed one iota by someone's poor rating that also caries the weight of their stake to vote against rewarding the item. The reward is not a guarantee and considering it as given is counter to how the system to curate is created to function, and why it was created. The system is designed to work with wisdom of the crowd. It thus means nothing that one person rated something as not worthy of rewards, as at that particular point, from the aspect of wisdom of the crowd there isn't a crowd. The way it functions is simple, take this example :
Someone writes a post, whatever it is, obscene or abusive, or incredibly important.
Post gets downvoted by one, two, three accounts, irrespective of reason.
Author can still publish posts, let's say the author is bothered by this. They publish a post exposing the downvoting. Post gets downvoted yet again. Noweher is there suppression. The author can continue to post, especially if he has an audience that disagree with the voting, even if they don't have enough stake to invalidate the downvoting on the post they can ask for support from their group to do so, and if the crowd forms it should not only reverse the flags but create more rewards than if the falgs weren't handed out.
If the Author has built themselves a following, they are insulated by their followers from being voted as rubbish, why? Because the downvotes essentially work invariably to cause even more posts that get published for even more eyes to find so the attempted suppression backfires and creates more controversy than had whoever tried to suppress it not have done so. You can't call it suppression because of intent, irrespective of intent suppression must be effective and demonstrable or it's not suppressing or suppression.
Censorship is impossible on here. People can publish whatever they want. They aren't entitled to any rewards what so ever though. If 100 people vote on someone's item and one person votes against them and wipes out any and all would be rewards that is exactly what they are allowed to do, because otherwise we would be censoring their freedom to express themselves by curating things as not worthy of rewards.
Allowing people to express support, appreciation and encouragement and only that, renders this place open to all kinds of problems much larger than any of the ones we have right now with vote selling, as no one has any chance to counter what they think ought to be rewarded nothing, and without the risk of people voting against rewards people will be able to self vote freely, creating a prisoner dilemma so that the risk of not getting a vote in return for giving one will make everyone only take whatever is given as taken, and will resort to reward only themselves, and as people become more and more sour they will eventually be the overwhelming silent majority self voting. Downvoting, is no different that booing and jeering after all, yet it becomes a robust counter to keep voting healthy and not let this experiment go into self voting meltdown at the same time. Out of a crowd of hundreds, one or two people booing a speaker is not censorship, it's heckling, it's expressing intolerance. Freedom of expression is the larger freedom that encompasses freedom of speech. If we are to be on guard of one kind of expression that is far to easy to suppress, is the expression of intolerance, of disgust, of hate itself, let alone malcontent and dissent all of which can be expressed without words, in volume alone and regardless of intent. If the whole crowd expresses the same intolerancr of the speaker that these hecklers did, they don't censor the speaker, as the speaker isn't entitled to a receptive or respectful audience and they shouldn't be, those things ought to be earned not freely given, and given only at discression.
You propose that a jury of n number of people vote. Yet the problem is that this takes time, this takes mental energy, and mental capacity, this requires that the voters are peers, or at the very least speak the same language, this requires that we sacrifice and expose people to all kinds of content that could disturb them. Naturally, people will opt out. That will make it so that the honest few are competing with the numerous alts of the ones who gain most, the sadist and the troll, by subverting the panel. You still haven't prevented it, or done anything to slow it down, just gave the option to reverse a flag or punish twice, a bot account will revel at the thought that it can cause so much distress in so many parties simply by downvoting , and ultimately the backlog of trials will grind to a halt because to coordinate such a system you have to find active people.. You haven't really considered that the system of jurors will be vulnerable to trolls of all kinds, as anonymity and the power to punish free of consequences will sound like free beer to them, and the few that join this, they will be taxed in both time and in considering/ judging, and they cannot be directly compensated as that would be gamed by a whole other group of people, and then the anonymity of the jurors would oy be a matter of queering the chain for such transactions, detailing how much and where to it's going.
The cost is robustness in this case, as a bad actor, regardless of the costs, will abuse the system and the downvotes, and they aren't prevented either way. This proof is the inverse of Censorship. As no ammount of downvoting will remove any account's right to publish whatever they want, and thus express themselves. Just as one bad actor will not relent in the face of your proposal, no good actor will relent in the face of what they're curated as, especially if they have an audience, and even more if they have a following.
The premise of "quality gets rewarded" is predicated on whatever one defines as quality. You do not propose to remove downvoting entirely as many usually suggest, you propose to create an committee that people over a certain rep sign up to do the unrewarded work of deciding what is quality, not what is right, and what is right is left to the few that want to sacrifice their time and mental energy on this and the rest who revel at the chance of causing misery.
I didn't bother to read the comments under your proposal, but @personz wasn't rebuked in his very succinct rebuttal to your proposal and idea of "deplatforming" "demonetization" and obviously "censorship" and "silencing". I implore you to find the time and either rebut those points one by one or you must contest that he is correct. I discussed with him the issue of abuse before and we see eye to eye on Self Governing/Anarchy (as in the Declaration and Definitive Treaty of Peace) and on the issue of downvoting not being censorship. I didn't realize though, that the proposal was even more taxing on the would be jurors, in effect censoring them for not participating which again only introduces more problems and it prevents nothing.
You remakerd that the content distribution on here is nowhere near what is on Facebook and such, saying something about how steem has far too many selfies, but I'm not sure that's the case at all. The content distribution is skewed in other ways, primarily because this is censorship proof, to the conspiracy crowd, or more appropriately to those that investigate and disenimate their finding against very powerful people and groups, and they get far more air time in ratio to the rest of the content than they do on any of those platforms, while more importantly on here a group of people are unbreakable, and soon enough it will be even more convenient to group and equally as unbreakabl, whereas on any of those "pl
atforms" you either fall pray to Ban Hammer Happy power tripping in the actual groups feature and/or clear censorship from both the users and the "plaublishers" , and finally from there all together and the later is pretty much de facto from what I hear, "what you're against vaccination!Boot".
.
The other way it is skewed, is that on those platforms the bread and butter is in extroverted "living" one status update at a time and on here the introverts have a chance to status update, since who wants to pander to "this is what I did today" all - the - time.. I imagine that there's still good ideas being floated under the watchful discression of "plaublishers" and under the noses of "envy my life" #nvos.
Steem has a more robust future than any of those "platforms" have in their current state because no one can simply delete ones group or page or get the boot, and when people have had enough they will stop pandering to the NV crowd and start experimenting with describing their perspectives instead of their "day",and they'll do it on here or on a platform that resembles what we have right now.
Posted using Partiko Android