You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why should anyone have the power to reduce another person's pay-out?
The fear is that I cannot feed my family unless I write about what the rich people want me to write about. It's like an augmented kind of freedom.
I do appreciate the permanence of blockchain which is unquestionably an improvement on previous systems. Even if a post has been collapsed, had it's images removed and pay-out reduced to zero, de-incentivising people to read it... it is still there underneath all the 'DO NOT VIEW' kind of warnings.
I understand the concern but ultimately what you are saying is true whenever you are selling something.
Plus, I don't think freedom of speech equates to the entitlement to make a living from your speech. You can write a book but no one has to buy it. I get that the dynamic is a little different here but I think it's ultimately the same concept. Someone has to decide the value of what you have produced and be willing to pay for it. On Steem it is the consensus of all the votes and flags that are cast that decides. The fact that those with more money have a greater say in what is bought (and for how much) is an inevitable result of a free market. It isn't perfect but like I've said before, I would argue that there is nothing better and that there won't be without a fundamental change in human nature. No matter how rewards are distributed, whales would emerge as long as there is a market for steem and without a market for steem then this would all be moot anyway.
Having said that, I'm sure there are tweaks that can be made to make things better. I just don't think the fundamentals are going to change very much.