Interview with a Big-Fish
Steem is censorship resistant and as I said in replies,
I agree.
...there are many front ends that do not even grey downvoted to oblivion posts
I haven't found one yet that shows posts from accounts with negative rep.
steempeak and busy.org show individual posts that are downvoted below zero pending payouts, but still hide posts from accounts with negative rep.
and, anyone can make another.
Well, not exactly "anyone". Do you happen to know of a good tutorial?
People seem to commonly call downvoting censorship...
Censorship is the suppression [NOT NECESSARILY THE ERASURE]of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." WIKI
...when what they actually are doing is piggybacking another aspect of the blockchain onto their "claim". Earnings.
Look, nobody, and I mean nobody's earning lambo money on steemit.
Upvote rewards are negligible to non-existent for most people, and you can make way more "profit" by simply band-wagon-voting the top earners.
It was suggested to me by steemcleaners that declining rewards would mitigate downvotes.
I shared this suggestion with a few accounts that were getting heavily downvoted (for differences of opinion and not for "specific violations of community standards") and they reported that the downvoting continued without interruption and their rep was getting slaughtered.
So, no, it's not just greedy twits who are hungry for fractions of pennies.
Declining payouts does NOTHING to slow down the abusive downvotes.
Let me ask you,
Does it make sense to you to set a minimum payout above 0.001 steem?
Why?
Why steal scraps of dust from all the hopeful newbz and shovel that dust into the mouths of the top-earners (with pending payouts above the 20 steem reward curve sweet-spot)?
How does this seem "fair" to anyone?
What's the moral-theory?
ALSO, LOWERING THE MINIMUM PAYOUT TO 0.001 (would remove the financial incentive to downvote) AND FLATTENING THE CURATION REWARDS (NO MORE INCENTIVE BONUS FOR VOTING IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES) WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO "FIXING" STEEMIT (are the band-wagon voters really "adding-value"?)
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles. copyleft wiki
Use the tag #LOGICZOMBIE if you'd like to participate in a civil debate or have your post critiqued for logical coherence.
Essential sites for (new) steemit users
Protesting without dialogue (with the sole intent to silence opposition) is harassment, not free speech.
I'm not a fan of ad hominem attacks, but I'm even less of a fan of censorship and retaliation.
Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue and civil debate).
Perhaps anarchy already exists and government is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – @thoughts-in-time
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Big-fish upvote (0.15), https://steemit.com/hive-100421/@davidpakman/ibdobeki#@logiczombie/q5ynu1
The ability to speak freely, not earn freely
Also, does this mean you believe that if you don't like a shop owner (who isn't doing anything illegal) or you don't like the patrons of that shop, that you should be able to take money from their till and redistribute it to other shops?
Depends on what Steem is and is not.
Please explain.
Whether or not people should be able to downvote may partly depend on who owns and rents the different parts of Steem, or not. I say that as that is the confusing part.
Maybe "only witnesses can downvote"?
No it does not seem fair or reasonable to me. Given the circumstances, the intention behind these decisions/rules does not appear to be about creating a fair platform. Its appears to be more about creating a controlled environment that makes the distribution of Steem more difficult. The bulk of the reward pool being funneled to those who already hold the most Steem looks like self sabotage.
At a guess it may be seen as an incentive for people to invest.
is it excessively too aligned with socialism?
Is it "socialism" to steal from the poor and give to the rich?
Oh, inverted Robin-hood-ism. To answer your question, I would ask Bernie Sanders what he thinks about this question. Better yet, Obama talked about redistributing wealth. Now, that would include stealing from the poor. When I say socialism, I am using a very generic definition or version of socialism or perhaps things somewhat indirectly relevant and related to socialism. That is how I talk. I use words very loosely in order to compare things with other things as opposed to talking like a scientist who is forced to be very literal, direct, simple, scientific, as opposed to being theoretically, metaphorical, indirect, general, etc.
I'm not suggesting redistributing to anyone.
I'm simply suggesting we stop stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
Who steals from the poor?
The "reward pool" that everyone loves to crow about "protecting" with downvotes is comprised mostly of "below minimum payout" fractional upvotes from small accounts.
All of this fractional dust is collected and then redistributed to the top-earners (posts that make more that 20 steem get some of it, and posts that make 200 steem get the largest percentage of "the reward pool".
So, downvoting = steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Socialism Pool:
I don't like the shared pool. But if there was no downvoting, then the pool would at least be first come first served.
Abuse
Of course the pool can be abused.
Little POOLSSSSSS vs one ring to rule em all
That is why it would be better if Steem were to allow for decentralized pool systems flow through the Steem system similar to how cryptocurrency exchange websites might work as opposed to one big centralized Steem Rewards Pool. Whoever thought that a centralized pool was the best way to compete with the central bankers needs to go see a brain doctor lol.
Not in my mind, but it would depend on how you define that word : )
I would encourage Steem to be a blockchain that allows for as much free markets as possible. Ultimately, it may come down to what might be and what might not be Steem. It depends on if Steem is private property and/or public..... to what extent... etc..... etc...
What "improvements" would you personally suggest?
I would substitute downvoting with dislikes. I would bring back the views counter.
The views counter would be awesome.
Also, instead of rep being tied to downvotes, I'd like it tied to the MUTE function.
If over a hundred people (with your rep level or above) MUTE your blog and your rep gets sliced by two thirds or something like that.
Yeah, if a certain number of people mute an account, then keep their newsfeed in a mute channels tag or category and remove them from the main feed perhaps. Also, they should filter languages. I would love to see only English in the new created posts feed on Steemit.
Good ideas!
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPVote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Interview with another Big-Fish, https://steemit.com/stats/@socky/q5yzzi
Another Big-fish upvote (0.29), https://steemit.com/hive-100421/@davidpakman/qnxijgco#@logiczombie/q6dnf8
Interview with another Big-Fish, https://steemit.com/hive-100421/@themarkymark/emdvnviy