You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Untangling the Gordian Knot that is Steem Ethics
I believe in giving people the freedom to determine for themselves whether or not they want to do that or not.
I believe in giving people the freedom to determine for themselves whether or not they want to do that or not.
The freedom of others ends when it diminishes mine. Adding toasters to electoral mechanisms is not a right. Bots voting destroys human rights. We do not have the authority to grant rights, we're born with them. Toasters aren't born with them, because they aren't born.
Bots are programs. And programs are programmed by people. As I type to you right now, I am using bots, AKA programs, to type to you, through the web browser program and the operating system program. So, it comes down to drawing the line. Where do you draw the line and how do you enforce that line? I have a code I know for autoclicking. So, I know how to make my mouse auto-click again and again. That could be a bot. Of course, a lot of people can be against the automated bots. I understand that preference. But how do you stop a bot? I could turn this account right here that I am writing from into a bot account simply by adding a program that could do things. So, what would you try to do with my account as soon as I did that? Would you want to only downvote me as soon as you see the same comment coming from my account again and again or would you try to ban my account or what? How do you stop the bots without stopping the people who program the bots? It's like trying to ban guns, drugs, wars, etc.
Using toasters to make toast is fine. Letting toasters vote is not. There's the line.
Well, regarding the issue on Steem, which is bots voting, the reason bots are used to vote is to manipulate the rewards mechanism profitably. Eliminating the ability to financially manipulate the rewards mechanism will end incentive to use vote bots. I have proposed a functional mechanism to do so, which I will not detail again here. I have called the mechanism the Huey Long algorithm, and if you're interested you can find it in my comments on a post by @blocktrades some months ago when they sought a plebiscite on how to fund SPS.
I have limited means, and so selectively downvote spam and abusive self votes using botnets where I can reduce the ROI of such vermin. I don't bother flagging bots that aren't used for profiteering, nor do I vote other than organically, so I don't follow any trail or use an autovoter. Votes are only valuable if they are something people do personally, IMHO. Financial value inuring to votes tends to corrupt voters, and using bots to do so is but one means of corruption.
I don't want to ban them. I want to make it valuable to be a person in society, and mechanisms that make it just as valuable to be a bot are bad policy. Guns and drugs are something people use to craft society, so keeping them from being used to financially manipulate is something I also support.
I don't want bots to be economically encouraged to dole bullets or heroin out either, for the exact same reason: doing so degrades humanity.
People are what create value using their judgment. Corrupting that judgment by bribery is therefore contrary to societal benefit.
I generally upvote anything with the #InformationWar tag. So, why not use a bot to do what I am going to do? Like, every day, I upvote Information War posts. Why should I take the time to manually upvote them when I can have a program do it? I do not see a difference. I am going to manually upvote them anyways. But I feel like I am so busy. I don't have time to upvote manually. So, automatic voting is like delegating. It's like the bots are my employees. I'm like the big boss or slave master.
I know that there are many facts I am unaware of. I upvote manually, because I am certain that society is people, and even though I upvote every #informationwar post and comment I see, I know there are many I do not see and upvote, because I am merely human. I can grasp that my beneficial impact is therefore limited to what I personally see and impact. How this adds vigor and strengthens human society I cannot perceive fully, but because the principle is sound, I am confident it does.
I am aware of my limited human nature, and accept there are truths I do not know. I am confident in the underlying principle, and am confident that the truth is true even when I do not know of it.
I stand on principle, and as a result do not have the potential to be as harmful as an overlord. That is a good thing. Limiting my impact is a good thing, when that impact would be harmful.
I stand on the principle of freewill, freedom, private property rights, etc. Specifically, I want the freedom to do what I want, good or bad.
Twetch
What do you think about Twetch and do they have a better system than what Steemit has? I agree that we should always try to limit bad behavior which includes the voting bots. Trying to find ways like you said to reward real human interaction and better quality in posts, comments, content, etc, of course.