You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Will Flagging Ultimately End up Killing the Steemit Platform?
I think the system should introduce moderators, who approve of flagging before a post is really flagged. I mean someone may flag a post, despite it being a proper post and not a spam. In that case, the user should have an option to file a complaint, and if moderators see that there was no problem with the post, the downvote should be removed.
As it is now everyone is a moderator, and I think that's as it should be. It should be a decentralized network, and the problem is the centralized distribution and the shortsightedness of some of the whales. Adding more centralizing features like designated moderators with special powers is only going to make things worse because that power will ultimately still be controlled by the stakeholders, amplifying the destruction of the centralized stake distribution.
I do think there should be curation penalties as well as curation rewards. If you use your stake abusively to upvote spam or downvote in order to censor, other stakeholders should swarm and counteract those votes. Just as you should receive curation rewards for upvoting popular content, you should receive a negative curation reward (a penalty) for voting against a strong stakeholder consensus. In any case the survival of Steem depends on the majority of stake being held by good faith voters.
Hey, that's a really clever idea @hmushtaq! Maybe if someone engages in soft-censorship too many times, they could permanently, or temporarily lose their flagging rights? That would put less of a work load on the moderator(s).
I think someone abusing the flag button that much (with malicious intent that is) must lose more rights than just not being able to flag.
I feel where you are coming from, but at the same time we don't want to turn into the people we are fighting against.