You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Negative Voting and Steem

in #steem8 years ago

Please allow me to speak freely.

When I registered, I knew the whole system is practically still in Alpha and that the devs are still constantly tweaking under the hood, which to my great surprise includes updates to the database itself; so the whole system is still quite fluid, understandably.

But some of the reactionary changes that you hint at, or have already implemented (the rep system, for example) at the behest of a choir of complaining users, objectively give the impression that The System cannot be relied on. Users constantly have to live under the fear that they wake up the next day to find a major change implemented without any forewarning or notable discussion, and so far, at least in the last month, these changes have summarily been to the detriment of the ideas of free and open markets and have instead been restrictive and belittling in nature.

So reading your most recent musings about votes on votes leaves the impression that you don't really trust the users and don't trust your own system and its ability to self-regulate as a liberal economy ought to and find an equilibrium once the big "excitement" has been damped. That the devs are willing to tweak and "repair" the blockchain to death until it is plain simply too complex to allow for freedom and anarchy and has become a bureaucratic, metastable domino monster structure of "Code Law" nobody really understands anymore or can rely on.

It sends a message of cowardice, of fear of loss of control. Have some cojones, some trust in your own ideology and allow the system to find itself out, to self-regulate organically and naturally, to slip out of your control, instead of intervening with more code each time a clique great enough make noisy demands for ways to introduce the oh-so-soul-soothing censorship and moderation through the backdoor.

You manage perfectly to ignore the crowd who suggest that the interface is a major pain in the lower back because it still doesn't allow "circles", "tag subscriptions", "favorites", costumizable streem feeds, powerful filters and other simple tools to make curation more enjoyable than wading through tons of the created irrelevance - simple, and seemingly easily built tools one must find off-site in the work of independent devs such as roelandp, jesta, mauricemikkers, blueorgy or xeroc.

So it is becoming sort of "suspicious" that micromanaging the backbone, the blockchain, in favor of regressive, authoritarian and reactionary demands, even spending time thinking and pontificating about it, takes precedence over a more fluid, liberating and empowering user experience which could easily circumvent the problems all the interventionism is trying (and failing) to solve and raise the value of Steemit for simple, average users who are not so foolish to expect to get rich "steeming".

And it is a pity I must add that this is not a rant against you or Steemit or meant to be a personal attack in any way - that I am merely fulfilling my promise not to be blinded to the dangers of Steemit, to remain intellectually honest and scientifically sceptical. I express my enthusiasm for the cause and my hope for the success of the experiment by alerting you to a very dangerous pitfall: overregulation.

It lowers my own perceived value of Steem much more than its dumb market cap, and I cannot imagine I am the only one having a bad feeling about the way the platform seems to be going with this; and I almost feel bad for hoping "Akasha", "Yours", "ethereal" or whatever comes next prove to be more honest, straightforward, reliable, open, participatory and anarchic systems.

Sort:  

It is important to note. This is not truly anarchistic.

It is based upon shares, stakes, in a company.

Those with more stakes can have more power to vote up or down. They can essentially lift you into the limelight, or drop you into the dregs. This also depends a lot on how whichever tool/site (I like to call them "windows") for viewing the blockchain you are viewing. It could be possible to make a "window" that ordered posts in a completely different way.

It is important to note this is not really anarchistic. It is more like we are all investing in a decentralized corporation as stake/share holders, and one of the desired/stated goals of the corporation is anti-censorship. In terms of the blockchain this is true, yet different "windows" into the blockchain could indeed censor information from their view. This is not necessarily a bad thing. People who want absolutely no NSFW feeds could use a "window" designed for them, and those who love NSFW could have a window where it is brazen and unfiltered and perhaps even intentionally highlighted.

So censorship of the blockchain does not exist. It does however exist on a "window" by window basis, and the up vote/down vote with power based upon shares/stakes can in fact act as a form of censorship.

Yet when we think about it there are some forms of censorship most people do endorse. Censoring the plagiarist, spam, and abusive. Some of those terms being completely subjective.

I agree with you 100%, I have repeatedly predicted Steem's success will stand and fall with the interfaces and analytics tools and filters that will be developed and used a gif from the Zion approach scene in "Matrix Revolution" each time:

I'd be much less concerned if the rep system were simply a metric computed by the interface, a short analysis calculated by summing up- and downvotes somehow. But lo and behold, https://steemd.com/@dwinblood says there is a new cell in the database:

Reputation: 6,233,550,417,451

And it did not even seem to require a hardfork, unlike the update to get rid of the liquidity reward bug using.

Other interfaces will not have such luxuries.

I express my enthusiasm for the cause and my hope for the success of the experiment by alerting you to a very dangerous pitfall: overregulation.

How is this proposal "overregulation"? It's addressing a real problem: people (me included) seem to want a clean way to decrease a post's payout and right now, due to having on other way, they abuse the flag tool to achieve the goal. So it's an important functionality improvement which cannot be fixed on the interface level. For me, it has nothing to do with overregulation.

You manage perfectly to ignore the crowd who suggest that the interface is a major pain in the lower back because it still doesn't allow "circles", "tag subscriptions", "favorites", costumizable streem feeds, powerful filters and other simple tools to make curation more enjoyable than wading through tons of the created irrelevance.

What you call the interface is a privately owned website. If you want these tools and Steemit.com fails to deliver them, just go and build them on your own website similar to Steemit.

It's addressing a real problem: people (me included) seem to want a clean way to decrease a post's payout and right now, due to having on other way, they abuse the flag tool to achieve the goal.

The "Flag" symbol itself is already a symbol of overregulation, a psychological weapon to discourage natural and organic intervention when the payouts are too high. Calling the downvote a "flag" and abuse it as an instrument for castigation is already a sign of fear.

What you call the interface is a privately owned website.

While true, I am referring to it in its function as interface, not in is function as privately or otherwise owned website.

If you want these tools and Steemit.com fails to deliver them, just go and build them on your own website similar to Steemit.

With black jack and hookers, @innuendo, with black jack and hookers.

Yes ... A good name is better than riches...

Image of Photo
the rep system

Right on. Well said. Adding "features" such as a reputation system is actually adding censorship. I agree that they should be concentrating on creating front-ends to make curation more fun, and profitable to committed users, and encouraging the creation of tools and bots that really help, with really smart AI. Instead of trying to kill bots by ruining the experience for everyone to freely vote and post whatever content they choose and as much as they like, we need to embrace them and make them really useful.

This is 2016. People need to accept that AI is a tool, an extension of ourselves. Restricting the use just because someone, like Wang, is /successful/ is a form of censorship and a limitation of freedom of expression, and to me, a limitation of the freedom of thought, because to me, a bot is an extension of my own mind. It votes with the strategy I program it to vote with. It is me. And no one, under the original Steemit implementation, had the right to limit how and when I vote.

I think it even simpler, tbh. With the proper front-end, you could simply save a blacklist. There would be a market for blacklist, @cheetah would get upvotes to no end for providing curated lists of known spammers, malbots, plagiators, impersonators and trolls, and, depending on severity and heuristics, hide or block their posts automatically so they never take up one second of attention. Problem solved.

Who needs a reputation system if you have such an incentive to behave well?

And no one, under the original Steemit implementation, had the right to limit how and when I vote.

Has your ability to vote been limited in any way?

Yes, because voting power decreases with votes cast, then I am always consciously thinking of whether or not I should vote on something based on my past history of voting. Think about that for a second. I am altering my behavior of trying to reward content and comments I like and think have value (such as your comments), because I thought something else I just read had value too? That's not right. I'm censoring my actions based on my previous actions, and making a decision to vote or not based not on the value offered by the post/comment, but simply based on my prior actions. That sucks.

I don't remember any time when voting wasn't restricted by consumable power. That would lead to horrible vote spamming abuse. In the early releases, vote power recharged by the day (instead of five days currently) and each vote used more of it compared to now.

Another limitation is the algorithm for weighing your vote based on age. What about short posts that take 1 second to read and you like it? You vote it up and it goes to the moon and you get a pittance. You have to apply a strategy to time your vote? That is just wrong.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.15
JST 0.030
BTC 59218.43
ETH 2534.91
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.44