You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Corruption On STEEM : What Do You Do?
As soon as the platform keeps improving, then is fine. ¿Do you think we are better? Or worse than 3 months ago as a platform? In my opinion better, but maybe it's just my perspective
@arturomdg—I haven't been here very long, but I have a friend who's been here for a year and a half and he's told me a few things about how Steemit was before and how it has progressed. From what he's told me, there have been some pretty necessary improvements made to the way things are run here.
To @buggedout point, though, I think the question is, what are we—as individuals, groups of likeminded people, and as a whole community—going to do about the corruption? Do we even see it as such, or to what degree do we let it go before we then do something?
This a live and let live social experiment, where I think we're finding out rather quickly where our limits are. And some people have gone the next step to take things into their own hands because they think it's for the good of the community (even though it might not be and their motives may not be so altruistic).
It's sad in an experiment such as this that anyone of us might feel hesitant to express an opinion about what's going on, or even ask a question about it, but @buggedout, I'm glad you did. :) I don't believe in McCarthyism, but if it looks like a rat, squeaks like a rat, and smells like a rat, it's probably a rat. :)
Great comment.
"I think the question is, what are we—as individuals, groups of likeminded people, and as a whole community—going to do about the corruption? Do we even see it as such, or to what degree do we let it go before we then do something?"
It is just an experiment, but if you can help me figure out the answer I'd be very grateful! :)
Since it's a thought experiment, I'd be happy to go along. :)
I wouldn't try to attack it from the standpoint of getting consensus on what is corruption, what to do about it and at what point. As you stated, this is an anarcho capitalist setup, with virtually no rules and therefore an open invitation for all kinds of diverse thought, including what actually constitutes corruption.
Instead, I'd rather work on a way to disincentivize it. I'm not sure what that way is, but I think it has its roots in what I believe to be the overuse of the upvote.
We're supposed to be using the upvote to determine quality content, so we mostly reward the creator, while incentivizing curation.
However, upvoting is now the only way to get a post noticed outside of your following and onto the trending or hot pages up or near the top, which also includes all of the tags, since they are sorted that way. So people upvote themselves, beg for delegated steem from a whale or orca in the process, while using vote bots and all of the followers they can muster.
So, I think the way things are prioritized throughout all of the trending and hot pages needs to change from the upvote to something else.
To what is the issue. My first suggestion would be resteeming, since that's the most natural to me. As it is, it's underutilized and a potential detriment to you because it can become a noise maker for followers. I'd rather the number of resteems and the velocity of them would push things up the trending and hot pages and leave my posts and potentially my comments for the followers to push out as they see fit.
And I wouldn't incentivize it with any curation reward. Or if people would rather incentivize the resteem, take it away from the curation via upvote, but not both. The idea is to deemphasize the upvote. So, I guess in the case of a curation reward for resteeming, all of the reward for the upvote would go to the creator, and resteem curation would be separate and divided among all those who share the post in the same way curation works now with the upvote.
Some interesting thoughts there. But I think basing on Resteems or anything else can still be gamed, it just changes the game.
I'm currently thinking rather than disincentivise corrupt behavior, we should be incentivising ethical behaviour. Easier said than done, but I have an idea....
Okay, now that's a major cliffhanger!
Save it for another post. Can't wait.
I agree, incentivizing ethical behavior, if you can do it, would change things a lot. But as you say, or better said, how I interpret what you said, someone will find a way around it.
Pretty unfortunate that in a social experiment where you get to choose how you will operate that there's always going to be those who have to overstep, and then doubledown when they're called on it.