RE: Cyber bullying and the centralization of power on Steem
This is an argument over where power lies. Without central judges with enforcement powers then unfortunately, this is what justice looks like - warfare.
But, i am against concentrating power on the blockchain. First we ban this, then we ban that, then we're no different to anywhere else (twitter, cough, fb, cough). I am making this a bottom line of which witnesses I support; if your witness supports censorship at the level of the blockchain then no support from me.
What I do support is better tools and Steem UIs making these decisions over what they show their users. That way communities can build the tools they want with their own norms about what is and is not allowable speech. I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution to allowable content, but neither do I believe in giving up and allowing everything always.
For example, I would love a setting where I automute accounts blacklisted by steem cleaners. I love to just not see comments that are obvious spam.
I'm glad more people realize what I'm talking about!
That's a good point, I'd be careful but willing to try. Remember @steemcleaners is also centralized because it's just one bot but you could also say there's a team of people behind it.
That group of scumbags that run @steemcleaners have been harassing me and a few others too. Speaking for myself, I tend to use the posts from my long held blog here and if there are other links in the post I attribute them to the creator. Sometimes these assholes will send their bot network to down vote enmasse just because they can.
You can sort it out with them on Steemit.chat did you know? It's also linked right here in the comments.
Exactly. They don't take anything off the blockchain though. So, if steemcleaners started "cleaning" asparagus farmers (for example). Then I either turn off steemcleaners in my preferences or I make another site for Freedom for Farmers of Asparagus.
Well, yes, I'd maybe even 'mute' @SteemCleaners to which maybe I'd say to the blockchain:
And with that I'd maybe lessen his influence for the time being? Maybe a mute could be temporary or have a barrier effect; only votes over a certain amount would make the comments visible?
What do you think?
It's worth a try on the level of the UI.
I agree, I wonder how it might look like though... Any suggestions?
I guess that's up to each community to decide. It's worth having an expanded "mute" interface. A way to to subscribe to "mute"ing accounts.
As for the threshold over-riding a mute; you're into AI / ML so I guess you'll get the point the Follow, Mute, Unfollow, Upvote, Flag are all indications of user preferences. Given enough data on user preference you could predict when to override or when to pre-emptively not show content.... given enough data and good predictions, a user might never need to mute/unfollow/flag or downvote ever again.
Good point but then it would make a Google-like filter bubble. If you can edit this bubble then I think this is a great idea! Thanks.
And that's always the tradeoff. How much stuff-I-like versus bursting-the-filter-bubble.
yes @eturnerx, Things here should be done differently compared to other social media platforms and the way things are done society which many cases isn't fair.
With Blockchain we have the chance to do different and we should do so.
cheers,
@davidfumo
What do you think could be done?
I can still mention others but the fundamental here it's to make sure we are building a community, not a cash pool.
We all want rewards, but before that, let's guarantee we are promoting good content.
Cheers,
@davidfumo
Thanks for engaging.
I don't think it's possible to eliminate bots on Steemit. So, we rather learn how to use them to our advantage. I personally have bots I use to make my time on Steem more efficient so that I can focus on the human interaction.
Equal power votes means what? Equal power rewards? So, somebody makes a zillion smurf accounts and wins all the reward pppl? At least this way, voting power is tied to stake and stake must be earned or bought. I guess, if you'd like to try then soon you can make and SMT with exactly these properties and a UI to go with it. Then see how it goes. I'd be interested to see the results - but I'd put a quiet bet on it not going well. Nothing I like more than being proven wrong when it comes to the success of others.
I agree with you about the UI/UX. I'm current starring at an after-dinner mint Post button. THough, one great thing about Steem (the blockchain) is we can layer custom UIs on it if we want to build them.
I have my own rants about the UI here - essentially that earning anything worth a damn is ages away for most posters and they are here for the community. Since community is the main value proposition then a UI that enabled community more, I think, would be better.
I love the tipping bot and there are all kinds of cool stuff we can do with them. But maybe those accounts could be all pure human but we could interact with those accounts programmatically too.
Well I'd like to see real Proof-of-Brain because now it is more proof-of-"Look ma without hands" 2 sec. YouTube attention span.
And I don't blame people, I myself don't like to read all this stuff. There is too much info out there. Therefore: Machine Learning and summarize and digest, distil and then maybe I'd like to expand on the really good stuff. And on the other hand: often the really good stuff I'm just not ready for! Like a student is not a master, yet.
Exactly! That's why it might look like superficially that I don't care but the opposite is through. The thing is I cannot trust humans because they are just not accurate.
I'm for more ML in the UIs too. And specialist tools to help the jobs like curation for trails, getting an overall sense of hot issues. All those things.
Well I wonder if there might be something here for you:
"I've been working on several natural language processing tasks for a long time. One day, I felt like drawing a map of the NLP field where I earn a living. I'm sure I'm not the only person who wants to see at a glance which tasks are in NLP."
Thanks for such a useful list! If we're meant to be looking for quality content and ignoring the bad content then we can agree that meta-data around the content (tags, author, etc) are indicatory only. Therefore, better tools will need to delve into the content itself.
FWIW, I have a philosophical objection that AI can reliably make subjective quality decisions - but AI can certainly help.
Well to add to that I think people are voting not on what they read but who they know.
I'd actually trust an AI more because it never gets tired and is more predictable.
It's a strange thing subjective quality. Yes, certain people you like are going to get more leeway when it comes to out-there content compared to an unknown. Without thinking somehow that quality is an objective measure, I don't think it's even desireable to totally eliminate the "vote for who you know" part of finding quality content.
However, I do agree that, at least within community niches, there are tacit agreements on what quality looks like and where should be making tools that allow that to at least get a chance in the attention-sphere.
I'm not sure, if we could do A/B testing, incentivizes people to upvote different people like by giving higher payouts when voting for different people that would be quite an interesting experiment.
I think @rycharde had a proposal that reduced the value of votes to the same author within a certain time frame. I think his proposal was mostly to discourage bot upvote rings though I can see how it might encourage more diversity in which authors one chooses to vote for too.
I was following him but I miss so many posts anyway... Could you please point out which post it was in? If it's not too much work?
Well I'd say fair would be defined in a protocol and implent what you think is fair to you. Could be different for everyone else?