I thought you were against socialism? Aren't you a capitalist? And what about the free market? Adding restrictions to voting or other "hard fork" solutions are all simply "market regulations", which would be a centralized, governmental control. The problem with Steemit is at it's core in two places: the underlying psychology that was used to drive steemit as designed by Ned Scott, and the culture that's permeated because of said psychology. In essence, Steemit might be able to "fix itself" but it would take *group self-discipline" which history has shown repeatedly normally doesn't exist spontaneously in humans, and requires some sort of external force or circumstances. Perhaps Steemit will fall into a cultural abyss, and the mere fear of losing investments will force Steemians to open their minds to what "good content" really is.
Also, as a response to your comment on my other post, I think you should watch the Andrew Lavine video less for what he says, and more for the wide variety of emotions he displays. In this one video he goes through almost the entire spectrum of human emotion as he describes getting a negative comment from a Steemian. The whole thing showed me the psychological effect Steemit has on it's users. Once I saw this I dug a little bit, and sure enough, Ned Scott has a degree in both economics and psychology. Then watching videos of Ned speak about Steemit, I feel I hit the nail on the head. This guy is more interested in making people addicted to Steemit in order to further large stake holder's investments. Steemit is not really designed to help promote good content as advertised.
What do you think about upvote limits? Do you think that would help anything? https://steemit.com/steem/@theferalone/a-path-toward-proper-distributions-on-steem
I thought you were against socialism? Aren't you a capitalist? And what about the free market? Adding restrictions to voting or other "hard fork" solutions are all simply "market regulations", which would be a centralized, governmental control. The problem with Steemit is at it's core in two places: the underlying psychology that was used to drive steemit as designed by Ned Scott, and the culture that's permeated because of said psychology. In essence, Steemit might be able to "fix itself" but it would take *group self-discipline" which history has shown repeatedly normally doesn't exist spontaneously in humans, and requires some sort of external force or circumstances. Perhaps Steemit will fall into a cultural abyss, and the mere fear of losing investments will force Steemians to open their minds to what "good content" really is.
Also, as a response to your comment on my other post, I think you should watch the Andrew Lavine video less for what he says, and more for the wide variety of emotions he displays. In this one video he goes through almost the entire spectrum of human emotion as he describes getting a negative comment from a Steemian. The whole thing showed me the psychological effect Steemit has on it's users. Once I saw this I dug a little bit, and sure enough, Ned Scott has a degree in both economics and psychology. Then watching videos of Ned speak about Steemit, I feel I hit the nail on the head. This guy is more interested in making people addicted to Steemit in order to further large stake holder's investments. Steemit is not really designed to help promote good content as advertised.
When you juxtapose the Andrew Lavine video with the Jerry Banfield video, it REALLY spells the whole thing out.