You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Steemit is like Pioneering the Wild West: A Modern Day Gold Rush with Lack of Lawmen and Plenty of Vigilantes
I don't quite follow the jump from "this is the wild west, and it is desirable" to "but sadly, people are bad so we need a modern police state", if I may paraphrase so freely.
Hmm, I think I did an alright job of showing the pros and cons of both sides. My concern is that the scale will be tipped to the point that spammers and bots ruin the platform. I think it is an inherent struggle for any internet platform or society to decide whether to moderate or not to.
I certainly agree with the concern, no doubt about the undesirability of such content. However, there will be grey areas too. Who will be judge, jury or executioner?
The tools to "moderate" must be on the side of the interface, in the power of every individual user, it shouldn't be centralised on the blockchain. Installing a police force to combat abuse is like driving out the devil with the beelzebub.
You wouldn't outsource your gun toting, so why would you outsource your content filtering? :)
Good points, love the beelzebub reference! I am gaining some perspective on my viewpoint of moderation after reading these replies to my post. However, if steemit were to grow to monstrous proportions (like Facebook) I am unsure if the platform could withstand the pressures of the "bad guys" without moderation. Playing devil's advocate here.
I can definitely agree with that last paragraph. But I don't think Steemit will be exactly like this even in a year's time. I personally have an idea to create an application platform that adds a namecoin-like namespace and attaches account group memberships into it (This is why it is not just namecoin, maybe I could call it 'SteemHordes' or something witty like this). I have still yet to think of exactly how this can be a monetisable feature, but then on the other hand, it is a very very small quid of data, perhaps it can simply be a peer to peer distributed directory of sorts, that simply empowers users to filter their feeds more than the simple trending, hot, active etc.
When you factor in even such a simple possibility of fragmenting the entire pool of Steem discussion into a myriad of little subunits like this, there isn't really a need for moderation, although the more prominent group names might get the interest of trolls for being bigger targets.
Perhaps you will think of some element of this little idea that gives the possibility of both monetisation and creating a system of moderation. Perhaps, for example, the groups membership lists have to be multisig with designated moderators. Moderators could then reverse their signatures and a membership is removed. If this power is based on whoever registers the name first, and can be transferred, or even some kind of way of splitting this power so you have founder, and then you have a board, who if they agree, can exercise the same power as the founder.
I think, after a little elaboration upon the idea, that I may be onto something here. This would enable a system of moderation, and would simply function as a p2p protocol implemented by programs that query the main blockchain but also interact with the SteemDNS system. If name owners are responsible and moderate their little plots well, they will attract larger numbers of posters and readership, and thus votes. If they exercise good discretion, it will result in upvotes for good group membership curation.
I think that the platform is simply too small and young for the need to be visible, but a it grows the need begins to increase. The 'mute' functionality is very poorly thought out, merely drawing attention to the muted posts, not making them silent.