You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF20 Update: Operations Stable
Well, I think it does have to be a huge debate on how much is a normal amount that new accounts will be fine with. I used 5 as a restrictive example. The main thing is that we need to figure out something that's usable, even if they have to work a bit to get themselves above that. Kinda like a game.
If we give them too many though, then we have to decrease the speed that the number of posts increases by or it will just allow abuse.
But, if we restrict the number of posts on the tinniest of minnows, they'll wait to post the most important of comments and posts, and work to grow.
But it is very important that everyone debates this, to get the exact number right.
I personally feel that allowing freedom of speech is more important than not allowing abuse.
In my mind it is the harmfulness of abuse that should be approached. I know that its a difficult problem to solve, so difficult that the human race doesn't have good solutions for post moderation yet as a whole, on the other hand I think steem already provides an elegant solution, in the long run however the success of it completely depends on whether it allows people freedom or not, I've been around the block on steem, and my impression is that the types of policing that does exist is often more of a moneymaking racket than people making posts that are similar, badly researched, unsourced, etc etc.
Research articles is in my mind the lowest form of the blog, and personal opinion the highest and most valuable form, so that probably helps to explain why I have the thoughts on the subject that I do.
I like the anarchic, free atmosphere of the internet, it allows people to be themselves without living in fear, we all need to learn how to police outright scams, spams, properly abusive use of competitions, groups and services ourselves, so that we as a community can figure out what is the most elegant and effective patch that can eventually be used to automate the processes we do manually.
I hope we're looking at the situation with clear vision and the road ahead with enough foresight not to make steem boring, which it already is in many ways, to the frustration of many long term internet users.
I like your points, and I'm not trying to counter them in any way, I'm just hoping to add some ideas to the discourse.
It's not really censorship. If you don't pay for someone else to publish an article in your newspaper, it's not censorship. The fact is that it costs money to run sites. It costs quite a bit of money. The current blockchain incarnation is already fucking huge. Every witness server might be big enough to run this site by itself if it weren't on a blockchain. We can't have people abusing the system and making it harder to run the site. The question is how much are we going to supplement newbs, so they can earn enough to support themselves on here.
If the rates that are implemented are too restrictive, we can establish groups to find people to target for delegations. It's not that huge of an issue.
But it certainly feels like a huge issue when you're a new user and you're told that you haven't invested enough to comment any more times per day.
Of course, if they put in as much as they pay for their cell phone, they could probably get on fine. But we aren't quite that good for most yet.
Steem is not a newspaper its a blog.
If you're paying anyone to blog you're being ripped off.
If you have to 'put in' anything to get your blog hosted on steem it would immediately lose its credibility as a blogging platform.
Every cent that steem is worth, comes from people posting, the witnesses arent providing the bloggers with a service, they're harvesting the value from bloggers posts, and getting rewarded for it based on bloggers witness votes.
Can you imagine facebook limiting people from commenting, posting etc?
I'm not really arguing I'm just adding to the discourse I get your point of course, but I think that things have changed, social services HAVE to be free and they HAVE to pay the content creator, we all know this is the future.
Can you imagine if a newspaper charged their reporters for the articles? or the correspondance writers for their letters? that would be considered crazy.
I'm not really disagreeing, I'm agreeing, I just hope that those who hold the reins can be trusted to not adjust the parameter in their own favor and to rather adjust it in the bloggers favor, do you think that is a realistic thing to expect when bloggers have no control and only witnesses do?
See the problem is subtle, and is only likely to expose itself down the line when people get hindered by greedy witnesses choking the chain for more moola.
Anyway time will tell if their hearts are pure enough to ignore profit ;)
Everyone pays for hosting. How they do it is the difference. On some sites you pay for it with your eyes on advertisers. On some you pay with your data...and eyes on advertisements, because that's practically free money. Here, you pay with investment and in turn get paid. They probably could just cover everyone with the investments of the larger accounts, but they decided that there were certain accounts abusing the system. To deal with that, they decided to put in this system. Now the question is how much to limit small accounts, because the system as it was originally implemented was thought to be too strict.
As to the value of Steem...it's actually a split. There are certainly a lot of bloggers here that bring value...as well as some that are just leeches, but the actual value of Steem is caused by investors and traders, evaluating a number of factors, including the platform.
They've basically just turned it into a game where you have to level up first to be able to use it constantly. I have faith that many that we want to stay will deal with the limits for long enough that they can grow their account a bit. There will also be groups that pop up to increase people's delegations that appear to be really good users.