RE: The downside of crypto based social medias - The "I know what's best" mentality
Those groceries in that cart don't belong to that individual until they pay and leave the store, much like how the rewards don't belong to us until payday, and that is something we all agreed to in advance, before posting. Those are the terms you mentioned and waiting seven days is to be expected.
It would be odd if someone came along and removed groceries from your shopping cart, but you couldn't call them a thief.
Now, what happens if a few store stakeholders decide they'd like to earn more money and plan to have people put items in carts the shopper doesn't want, then forcing them to pay? Works fine, I guess. Then they become greedy and majority of the stock in the store is placed in the carts of only a few shoppers, while the rest of the shoppers get nothing, yet the store still makes the money they wanted. Shoppers then begin shopping somewhere else, since there's nothing at the store for them. That's what was happening here on this blockchain, in a sense. Maybe the word 'abuse' is wrong. Selfish, greedy, dysfunctional, counterproductive. Those are suitable words to describe that situation. Now what happens if that store is the only one in town? Would those going around, taking things out of carts and putting them back on the shelves so there's more for everyone else appear to be doing the wrong thing in your eyes?
Also. My intention is to be respectful and share my perspective. We all don't need to agree. I don't think everyone expects everyone else to agree with them but if they do, they'd probably need a good pep talk because that's not how life works. You shared your views here today in the same way others share theirs. If someone came along to agree with you here today, according to your logic, you'd then be forming your version of I know what's best. I wouldn't hold that against you though, because it's normal for people to believe in what they say, unless they're being dishonest.
As for the self voting. I think some disagree with that behavior when 100% of one's voting power goes to themselves. It's important to include those details. Not many complain when one self votes 10% or less, for instance. A low percentage seems to sit well with people because that individual is clearly giving far more than they are taking.
Wow, yes. Haha no need to always agree because I dont know whats best. I appreciate your thoughtful comment.
I can see where you were going with counter chopping idea..but what about this. I would agree when someone loads up three carts of stuff and then there is nothing left the issue might be with the permission the store has given the shopper to take as many carts as they want. If the stake holder has the means and ability to take multiple carts they are self governing how they see fit within the system that is created.
I guess in my experience with "shopping", when I get a cart and others help me fill it (one way or another)...it always happens. There has never seemed to be a shortage of groceries to go around, only an idea of too much or not enough. I could be wrong, it has happened before haha 😂
This situation is sometimes impossible to explain using analogies. Personally, if I was walking along and someone was putting things in my cart and then forcing me to pay for things I don't want, I wouldn't be impressed. Especially if I found out stakeholders were behind it and only doing it to increase personal profits. If they changed store policy and made it so I couldn't fight that abuse, I'd be more angry. They'd force me to buy those tampons I didn't need, fine, then I'd never shop there again.... LOL!
If others were helping you fill the cart, that's a different story and not like anything I was talking about.
Hahaha "peanut butter, jelly, tampons...wait...tampons?!"