The State of Steems "Government"
Before we get into this, let's just review the components of our government here on steem:
Constitution: Non-existent
Administrative Branch: Non-existent
Executive Branch: Non-existent
Judicial Branch: Non-existent
Well, with some due contemplation, I suppose that the Witnesses can be seen as a quasi administrative body, but they are more focused on the functionality, administration and governance of the physical blockchain itself and don't have any power or authority in regards to how that blockchain is used by users.
So what is up then with all these self appointed individuals who feel they have a duty to police the users that use the blockchain? For this discussion, I felt moved to clarify the word 'police' by looking up the etymology of the word:
Police (n) "the regulation and control of a community" - etymonline.com
There are lots of people on this blockchain that have taken on the duty to police the blockchain. The problem with their efforts is that they don't have any statutory or regulatory authority to do so. However, there is another principle that they use to justify their behaviour, whether they are consciously aware of it or not.
He who holds the gold makes the rules. - The Golden Rule
These individuals bypass the normal checks and balances of governance, mainly the separation of powers that most governments in the world are supposed to be held accountable towards. The principle of separation of powers is to ensure there is no abuse when people are exercising that power. That is why most governments were separated into three components; administrative, executive and judicial. The administrative branch is responsible for making the rules for people to follow, the executive is responsible for the enforcement of those rules and the judicial is responsible for ensuring that the other two branches are following the guidelines outlined within the constitutional documents that bind all three together and place them in a very small, tight box!
But this blockchain does not have a constitution, administrative, executive or even a judicial branch of government. So what is actually happening on this blockchain then?
What we have is a bunch of self appointed kings who have the money to use their own version of morality and choosing to enforce that morality upon others. These kings end up in wars with one another as they fight for power and control. Well, the word king is probably not a good term to use. So let's use the term "mob boss" instead. That is a much more accurate term to use as the mafia is hard at work to extort obedience and support from those with little or no influence on this blockchain while they fight other mob bosses who disagree with them. We have seen this play out in the world for thousands of years and this blockchain is no different.
The result of the mob bosses behaviour is that I know of many who left or are in the process of leaving the blockchain because they have been bullied, intimidated or are downright terrified of being the target of the mob boss lead mafias.
The power of the internet is that I can turn off my computer at any time and walk away from all this shit. The mob bosses really need to be careful or they are going to shoot themselves in the foot with this behaviour and crash this blockchain.
Many of these mob bosses have a lot of clout on this blockchain and rather than build up the communities, they tear them down, especially those that don't fit into their idea of what a community should look like. There is no recourse and no due process. Instead people are found guilty as charged and the sentence is usually for life. This is not how we run a healthy, vibrant, respectful community and it is this abhorrent behaviour that prompted me to leave the Government of Canada, Government of Alberta, Facebook and other tyrannical behaviours and institutions.
So what is the solution?
The moment somebody suggests that we build a constitution and form a formal administrative, executive and judicial branch of government for this blockchain, then I'm out of here. That is not the solution and it will only lead to more tyranny down the road. Creating a valid use of violence to control the mob bosses and other users is not going to help, but rather just continue to violence and wars that unfold on this blockchain.
The use of violence against the other abusers is not the answer either and we can clearly see that as a result of what the mob bosses have been doing for the past few years. Those who chose to violate others through spam, plagiarism and other abuses are just as guilty of the violence and abuses as the mob bosses themselves.
So how in the hell do we address the violent abuses on the blockchain without engaging in violence ourselves?
Banishment.
I'm not talking about kicking people off the blockchain as that would be a violent act in of itself. What I am talking about is the capacity to block people from interacting with me. If I'm being harassed by spammers, plagiarists, mob bosses or any other violent abusers, then I need a mechanism to protect myself from them that does not involve engaging in violence against them. We are NEVER going to agree with everyone, so let's stop pretending that it is possible. By having the capacity to block people so that they cannot see me and I cannot see them is a form of banishment that ends the violence being perpetrated against me or allows me to remove myself from parts of the community that I disagree with.
The abusers will eventually start to realize that their influence and control on the blockchain will start to diminish as what they see on the blockchain shrinks due to their violent and abusive behaviour. If people want to make blacklists so that others are aware of violent users, then so be it. Welcome to the world of free speech. But when people are engaging in an exodus from the blockchain because of all the collateral damage caused by the mob boss wars, then something has got to be done if we want this blockchain to flourish.
This is where I turn to the witnesses as they are responsible for the state of the blockchain. If we are working to prepare this blockchain for millions upon millions of people, this issue must be resolved once and for all. The function of the flag is not the answer as it is abused and used as a weapon of violence. Being flagged by the mob bosses sends chills down the spin of most people and fear is not what I want to see propagated on this blockchain. Despite the vast majority of people who think flagging is a valid tool, I still stand on the premise that it results in theft, violence and abuse. I'm even guilty of using it from time to time in the past and I deeply regret those actions.
But if we had tools to protect ourselves from abusers or isolate our selfs from communities that we disagree with, then that would shift the golden rule. Rather than the power resting in the hands of those who have the gold, the power should always rest in the hands of the individual. ALWAYS!!! I need a tool to protect myself from the violence on this blockchain and that is accomplished by being able to block or blacklist specific individuals so that they cannot see me, upvote, flag or influence my work in any way - no matter which app they wish to use on this blockchain.
By empowering each individual, we put the power where it belongs. The influence to grow communities within the blockchain is then made safer. While I may not agree with some of the communities that have grown up on this blockchain, I will defend their right to be here with my last dying breath. The moment we try to shut somebody up, we put a muzzle on ourselves and head quickly towards tyranny. So rather than forcing people to change, the best solution is to empower the users to block others so that they don't have to engage with them any longer.
The mob bosses and their mafia gangs are engaged in tyranny and that must stop!
The violent offenders will soon find themselves isolated and alone due to their own behaviours. If they want a community, then the choice is theirs on whether they will change their behaviours or not. The choice is theirs on whether they will act in peace, freedom, love, compassion and prosperity or choose greed, violence, control, power and authoritarian influence over others.
Luckily we don't need any branches of government, because solutions can be implemented permissionlessly.
While I continue to deny your analogies to the blockchain:
I see that your solutions remain spot on.
I was actually just talking about this issue to @canadian-coconut on discord. It wouldn't be that hard to create a model that renders users immune to flags.
Unfortunately, a free market for vote selling doesn't exist yet.
I'm also working on a reputation system that will allow users to give permissions to other users based on the level of trust that they've chosen to give them. This is in line if the whole exclusion-rather-than-fighting principal.
In essence, we can implement solutions here without asking permission, and they can pass the tests of pacifism that you so clearly value quite highly. You know, I'm trying to get there, but it's hard to put the
toolsweapons back in the box.This is actually part of the power of Steem-Engine and everyone having their own community to operate in. Now you're not thrown in with everyone. You really just have to make sure you have enough steem to interact on the blockchain and then after that it's really all about the individual community that you're partaking in. Also, the community might have excess RCs and in the future could delegate them to their users to use, and then you're completely separated from the larger steem community and really just whatever you and your app/interface community are doing.
Interesting idea. I checked out the Steem-Engine platform and this is what they said:
Why is it that punishment seems to be the defacto standard in dealing with malicious or even violent behaviour? I will write another blog post tomorrow, but the premise of that post will be about my right to choose who I interact with and my right & duty to end any relationship I deem abusive, violent or even those I feel like saying good bye.
So are you saying then, that the only way to protect myself for my other community members is to find a specific interface to interact with? The blockchain cannot or will not allow me to chose who I interact with or protect myself from violent abusers?
I'm also curious as to how Steem-Engine protects users from the abusers in the general population as all the content is posted on the blockchain. I've looked through their FAQ's, etc but not able to find any answers to those questions.
With all that said, I will try them out and see how it goes. Thank you brother for sharing the idea. I was not aware of Steem-Engine and I'll check them out more by actually participating with the community. Peace to you.
Unfortunately this is what I call the tyranny of decentralized platforms. It is impossible to apply Su Steemit principles of democracy such as those you have illustrated and which, however, presuppose a centralized structure. Unfortunately we need to be aware of this. And if we can no longer endure this climate, we must abandon this socials. If you want to have a more precise idea of what happens in the daily management of "justice" on Stemit you have to observe the discord channel of Steemcleanrs.
Unfortunately, we are in a situation worthy of the Middle Ages. For this reason this platform will never have a future because no serious entrepreneur invests in an environment without rules and managed in an authoritarian manner by a few bosses.
But, fortunately, there are other social platforms that, in fact, are learning from the congenital defects of Steemit. We must focus on these if, as you rightly say, one also needs to have a non-hostile environment.
Your wise proposal will never be accepted because, unfortunately, this situation is convenient for the few who hold and control the economic power of Steemit.
After all, there is nothing new. It's always the same old story ...
However, I always admire your wise constructive contributions. Good day.
ummm... if there was the ability for any user to "block" any user that they choose, and by so doing prevent that user from flagging them... abuse would be FAR MORE rampant than it is now! Surely you can see that? There would be literally nothing possible to do against an abuser. This is particularly the case in terms of the second sort of abusers you mention, the plagiarists and spammers. Please actually stop for a minute and imagine what this blockchain would look like if plagiarists and spammers could simply chose to prevent accounts from flagging them. I do not think you have thought through the implications of what you are suggesting. In any system where monetary reward/personal gain is possible, we know that a significant portion of individuals will game the system to their advantage even if it means taking actions detrimental to other participants in the system (this has been well proven through game theory studies, replicated hundreds of times to the point where we can come as close to saying that it is "fact" as we can say that the sun will come up tomorrow). There is monetary reward on steem blockchain. The second abusers could simply choose to prevent any user from flagging them, would be the second the entire blockchain would collapse underneath a huge steaming pile of plagiarism and spam. EDIT - I know that you personally are imagining using this ability in a constructive fashion to prevent abuses from being directed at a person. But you have to think like an abuser to see the true implications of what you propose. If everyone was altruistic a system like this could work, but of course if everyone was altruistic you wouldn't need something like you propose in the first place!
Actually, I have thought a LOT about these kinds of issues. In fact, I've been working on these issues for 15 years. There is nothing stopping an individual like myself to subscribe to a spam service on the blockchain that would warn me of all the spammers on the blockchain and automatically block them from interacting with me. I would still challenge the spam services regarding their lists, but it is a way to do this without violence or flagging. At least at that point everything is voluntary, rather than using force or coercion. Same could be done for those who engage in plagiarism or other forms of violence. I am not for a moment under the illusion that everyone behaves honorably. I'm very aware of just how prevalent violence is in our world. What I propose is a non-violent approach to dealing with violent people. I know it is hard for people to see. I pray one day they can. In the mean time, I will continue to speak of these issues and teach people how to implement what I speak of in their day to day lives. This not only applies here but it applies in ALL areas of my life. We can find peaceful ways of dealing with violence. I walk this path every day for years. It is not pretty, but it works.
No, I mean the blockchain would literally collapse. Not in a figurative sense. The blockchain could not function if your proposal was implemented. The flagging of spam accounts by spaminators, mackbot, etc. serves a vital purpose. If spammers could simply choose to not be flagged, the entire thing would literally collapse. The levels of spam posting would increase past the point that the witness servers could bear the state cost and even the top witnesses would be operating at a deficit. The only other alternative if spammers could choose to not be flagged, would be that the RC costs of making actions to the blockchain would have to be raised up so high that no users could transact at all except the absolute biggest whales.
EDIT - let me put this another way. I don't want to dismiss your 15 years of experience of thinking about these issues in the "real world", but in a very real sense, that experience isn't particularly relevant here on the Steem blockchain. You are absolutely correct that in a non-blockchain setting, if you could simply subscribe to a spam list and not see the spam posts, there would be no harm to you. But on the blockchain, whether or not you can see the spam, there is in fact a cost to you and every user for spam posting. The current RC costs per action are based on the current levels of activity on the blockchain, so you (and every user) are paying a price for the current levels of spam posting. We can say with absolute certainty that if spammers could choose to not be flagged, levels of spam posting would explode. This means, again with absolute certainty, that the cost to you and every other user for that spam posting would increase. Do you understand if I put it that way? The victims of your proposal would be those with the least steem power, as the cost to transact on the blockchain would price them out of using Steem at all. And if the levels of spam increase to the point that I am certain they would if spammers could choose not to be flagged, I think only very large accounts could actually transact. This would prevent spam, but it would also prevent... all other legitimate uses.
EDIT part two: I actually think the only real solution for a blockchain based social media site is to eliminate monetary reward. As long as there is monetary reward, there will be abusers manipulating system for reward, and flags will be a vital necessity to keep the system working. I would love to participate in a Steem clone that had no tokens, no payouts, but was just a truly decentralized social media network with the censorship resistant benefits of blockchain. I know myself and many others would use it even for no rewards. Heck, literally billions of people use Facebook for no reward.
Your entire premise that downvoting is “violence” and needs some kind of solution is flawed.
First of all, a downvote is not violence. It is not theft. It is not like rape (as some have argued in the past). It’s simply a downvote...no more “violent” or “abusive” than an upvote. Rewards that are allocated to your post during the seven-day voting period are not yours. They become yours once it closes - then it cannot be stolen from you unless you’ve been phished or hacked.
Secondly, as others have explained here and in the past (including Dan Larimer), you cannot disallow downvoting in a system where downvoting is the only real check against gaming the rewards system. If you eliminate downvotes (whether directly by protocol or by “blocking” them through individual profile functions), then you actually eliminate abuse mitigation. This was something that Dan had struggled with and admittedly could not resolve (as of two years ago - I haven’t seen him speak about it since then).
And finally, this is a DPoS blockchain. The entire system is based on ownership via shares/stake in it. It’s not a secret. There are no surprises. Nothing about it is hidden from any users. We all have a choice to begin interacting with this blockchain and to remain using it.
The underlying code and consensus protocols stipulate that those with more shares/stake in the blockchain - the people with more skin in the game - are the ones who have more control over the direction of the blockchain and its development. It’s not that different from being a shareholder in a company. And just as you can do with your stock in a company, if you’re not happy with this system, you’re actually able to do the one thing that you can’t do with real-world governments:
You can take all of your money and leave.
There’s no violence. There’s no theft/extortion. There’s no “mob.”
There are only individuals interacting according to blockchain protocols and using their own stake as they see fit. And everyone can do this.
The one caveat to all of this is:
Steemit, Inc. has severely skewed/damaged control and interaction on this blockchain due to the initial distribution of STEEM and their subsequent behavior/development since then. It is still a thorn in everyone’s side and may still take a long time to work itself out...if it ever happens.
Here, as you say, the "rules" of the game have been distorted from the beginning and you can no longer correct them. So the self-regulation of the system does not work. There is no hope ... except to consider steemit a bargain for a few users. Take or leave.
I've always felt a mute option would be great. @carlgnash I saw your comment and went.. oh yeah you are right too! However, it's quite likely that if there's no response they'll give up (surely there's a bit of ego there) and if the accounts themselves grow they are welcome to hang in the communities that actually want them or can be subject to usual reporting channels where people who want to flag can.
I do live in fear of being flagged for no reason. I'd love the mute button for some people I'm intimidated by or don't like coming across. In real life I can choose who to interact with .. here I can't. That doesn't mean steem needs to be like real life, and there is aspects of it that are GREAT for that reason, but I need to have an option to protect myself from the all out cruelty and viciousness of some people on this platform.
That said, I don't actually have solutions.. but @wwf sounds like a possibility at least and worth trialling. Meanwhile, I fly between all this rubbish and enjoy the things I love about Steemit. Xx
🐦💜
Posted using Partiko Android
I agree that there is an issue with this. The other issue is that there are armies of robots and people who are gaming the system and in those instances, I think a flag might be the right thing to do. I am not sure how both of those problems can be dealt with.
Your point is certainly valid and evident daily on "high value" posts.
Thanks as always!
We share a different view of steem governance. Allow me to outline our differences.
The code is law
The elected Witnesses approve or veto the laws.
Anyone with stake.
Thank the gods. That belongs in the EOS' experiment in over governance.
Your right, we see this very differently. You see the code that makes up the blockchain as being the judicial branch of governance? Can you please explain how you see it this way? I'm also curious as to how everyone with stake can come to some sort of consensus in regards to the roles and responsibilities of the administrative branch of governance.
Do be VERY clear though: The physical blockchain has a form of governance, but what I'm talking about is a form of governance for the people. Big difference between the two. The issue that I speak about is how people behave, not the blockchain.
Just like the judicial wing of human governance upholds the laws of the land and endevours to enforce them, so does the code lay out what is and is not possible and thereby enforces those rules even better than a human judicial system.
Allow me to make a case in point that recently took place on my feed. A user which is in my follow list made a post which had been flagged into a hidden state by the time it had my attention. It talked about the recent bombings in Gaza and how it had affected the user's family. One can only assume those who flagged it were Zionists. Being an anti-Zionist myself the post received a 100% vote from me. It was still hidden however so it was resteemed and the link brought to the attention of the @freezepeach group on Discord. Within the hour upvotes poured in and the post was visiable. It stands as of this moment with a net reward of $1.26. Through the use of stake it was decided the post was appropriate for which the poster seemed very grateful.
Steem's governance manages how things work on the blockchain. Although it is generally people making the actions, it can be automated through the use of bots as well; so it is a governance of how things are to work with the data on the blockchain and not about people per se.
The rules of a computer system will NEVER replace Spirit. I will not surrender my sovereignty to some computer system. If this world is prepared to surrender control AND governance to computers, then we are in big trouble and we will have learned nothing through the process. What you speak of sends chills down my spin my friend. I shall chose who I interact with, nobody else. I chose, not some computer. When confronted with a bully or some violent offender, I have the right to walk away and if it comes down to me walking away from this blockchain I will do that. But it should not have to come down to that though. Programmers or AI don't have the moral or ethical standards to reflect my spiritual journey.
Perhaps the big difference in our view plane is that to me the social media aspect of the blockchain (condenser) is just another dApp; be it an incredibly important one. The blockchain is a ledger which holds data. It is not human governance. It is data storage. Part of that storage is communications between humans, yet others record transactions between robots. Robots have no spirit in my opinion.
P.S.
You have my total support to interact with anyone in any way you deem appropriate. You have my complete trust at this point. These bullies annoy me as well. Although trying to avoid direct violence against them in the form of flagging, counter flagging their targets seems the least confrontational. My 6700 steem, aquired with some satoshi of a BTC allows me to lend a voice so to speak. Enough of a voice (stake ) that is comfortable to me in the governance of DPoS. There would be many sleepness nights for me should any part of my cryptfolio be under the EOS governance. 😎
Guess you could call me an old PoW Dude at heart. ✌💛
This post was shared in the Curation Collective Discord community for curators, and upvoted and resteemed by the @c-squared community account after manual review.
@c-squared runs a community witness. Please consider using one of your witness votes on us here
This post has been included in the latest edition of SoS Daily News - a digest of all the latest news on the Steem blockchain.