Instead of giving free downvotes, why not figure out a way to punish the behaviour that should be downvoted?
For example, I have been downvoting bots which tag me in curation spam posts, just a small downvote and the micro-cents it costs doesn't bother me as much as the spam. A system should be designed to prevent minuscule votes for curation as well.
You could read my post about Spam for ideas.
Serial commenters and upvoters should also be dealt with. An account giving micro upvotes to only large Steem holders hundreds of times a day does nothing for the blockchain. Low-quality posts which use bid bots are already policed, why not just adjust curation to the point where these bots are put out of business.
That's exactly what a downvote is. You're literally asking, instead of arresting people for crimes why not punish them for their behavior?
Then you go to say that you are downvoting, but implying that downvoting isn't the system which is literally designed not to prevent but to dissuade the behavior because to prevent it would burden everyone at the expense of preventing a few.
What you want is to prevent people from upvoting.. That's exactly what downvoting is, yet obviously you can't and shouldn't be able to "prevent" as that inherently taxes/burdens everyone and hinders freedom, you should though be able to dissuade, as that gives people a chance to correct and change and it effects a few not the whole.
How would you adjust curation?
Posted using Partiko Android
Two different things. Instead of punishing people I am suggesting we focus in preventative measures. If there is a system in place to limit spam, we won't need free upvotes which can be abused. So we could limit the value of spamming so people don't do it, make it cost more than it is worth.
We want to limit the freedom of spammers, I should have the freedom of not seeing spam and the freedom to restrict micro upvote bots from stealing the curation on my posts.
I am suggesting curation is raised slightly, some people are suggesting 50-50. I think 33% curators, 67% author. But the author should be able to select and blacklist certain curators. Maybe a comment can be required and needs to be upvoted by the author for extra curation or the curator has to follow the author. This gives more freedom to the author to dish out rewards that used to go to them.
Posted using Partiko Android
There's literally no real difference between punishment and prevention. You realize that prevention is punishment for everyone. You limit everyone in hopes of curbing what direct punishment is intended to curb.
As for the freedom, there is no such freedom. You don't have the freedom because there is nothing that can decide what is spam or what isn't. Some could have a very low tolerance for spam and others might not even know or recognize spam or agree that it's spam regardless of what it is. You can't just invent freedoms and act as if they have any place in the world as freedom when all they are is but arbitrary limits. I want the freedom of not seeing white cars, I want the freedom of not hearing honking for no reason, I want the freedom of "not"..
You can't have freedom to blacklist curators because you can thus blacklist everyone but a couple of alts and self vote in impunity. The author isn't the one dishing out rewards, curators are. Freedom isn't limiting people on arbitrary nonsense. The reason why flagging exist is to dissuade abuse, not to limit it. Much like laws in the real world aren't intended to prevent anyone or anything but to dissuade it. There are numerous ways to circumvent any suggestions you may have, and if not, if your suggestions are so overreaching then you cannot call arbitrary limits and obstacles Freedom or act as if it's increasing Freedom. What the heck did I just wake up in 1984, Ministry of Freedom?
Posted using Partiko Android
There is a difference between punishment and prevention. Not all preventative measurements are punishments and not all punishments are preventative. There are random downvotes which are more of an attack than a punishment as they aren't punishing anything. There are preventative measures such as RC limits which are not punishments. I don't want to talk philosophy here.
Providing free downvotes will lead to abuse, they need to have a cost for a reason. Downvotes are not the only form of punishment. If Steem is to become more popular we need to limit this libertarian concept of absolute freedom, libertarians are a small minority which scare away a majority. I should be able to filter who can comment and upvote me.
If someone wants to go through the effort of preventing everyone from upvoting them so be it, thousands of accounts can be created each day. If I don't want micro upvotes worth less than a thousandth of a Steem then what's the problem?
Preventing some bot from commenting or voting on a blog is not akin to Orwell's s ministry of truth. I fail to see the connection you are trying to make here. Are you trying to prove my point? SPAM is what comes out of the ministry of truth. Ignorance is strength. Repeated unwanted messages are propaganda.
It's very easy to determine what spam is. It is irrelevant or in appropriate messages or comments. It is also a repeated message sent indiscriminately to a large amount of people. A spam filter is a great idea, we can all set our own tolerances that is my point.
Maybe you didn't read my blog on spam mentions and comments, sometimes I get 20 or 30 a day and it would be very beneficial to block this nonsense.
Posted using Partiko Android
You should literally leave this place because the vast, overwhelming majority is Libertarians and Anarchists and they have no concept of absolute freedom but they value Freedom much, much more than you surely do. To you, freedom and imposing arbitrary limits is synonymous. Sorry but freedom is highly valued here, it's at the very core of why steem exists, the reason why you are on here right now is because of the ethos of Freedom of Expression manifested as Steem and without that you without a doubt wouldn't be here, none of us would. There will never ever be anyone with any sizable stake in the system (even @berniesanders) who will get behind the idea of arbitrary limits and blacklists over who can vote and who cannot or what is spam and what isn't.
Also you claimed that its very easy to determine what spam is, and you say "it's irrelevant or unwanted messages". Well, no shit, but to who? To the receiving end? And here comes the rub, how do you make that determination Automatically? O yeah, you set it yourself. Ergo you try to censor on a platform that is built on the cornerstone of freedom of speech and it holds that as it's most guarded aspect. You will never, ever have any chance at your "freedom" to be considered on here, even if you power up 99.999999999999999% of all the steem available and buy up all the remaining stake, you will literally be the only one here, everyone else would have moved on to the next iteration of Freedom Of Speech /Steem. Yes people will abuse things, yet there is a difference between a few rotten apples and a vast majority. People said that changing flagging to downvote is a bad idea because it will make downvoting more acceptable. They were VERY wrong. Exactly how they will be that suggests that giving people free downvotes will turn everyone into trolls that abuse it. Nonsense.
Posted using Partiko Android
You're telling me to leave your safe space of Libertarianism and Anarchy? That's rich!
Most people here are Capitalists, it's a cryptocurrency after all and profit can be obtained. I'll hand it to you that the decentralized aspect is Libertarian in nature and I like it. I'm not proposing more central authority here, I am proposing more control over an individuals Steem experience through the ability to create one's own filters. We can already create sidechains with these customizable filters, why not extend it to Steem?
Posted using Partiko Android
No I'm telling you that you won't find anyone to help you with your proposal. Most people on here are Anarchists. Be itt Ancap or not is irrelevant.
Posted using Partiko Android
Maybe 3 years ago most people on Steemit were Anarchists. Steemit changed in 2018, when the Anarchists sold out to the Capitalists. Most people here just want Steem to increase in value. Sure we all like decentralization but most people's freedom has a price.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why not extend Censorship to a censorship proof platform built primarily for safeguarding Freedom of Speech.. Gawd, where do I begin.
Posted using Partiko Android