RE: A question for the Steemit community about the mechanism of downvoting and the dangers of charlatans
Flagging is just the way the Steemit.com User Interface has chosen to represent what is essentially a downvote. If you go over to Busy.org you'll see a downvote option with no flags... but it's the same backend.
I agree the flag representation makes people more apprehensive about using it, I prefer the downvote icon. But in the end the functionality is fine. Retribution is unavoidable if the user decides to respond in that fashion. It's a fact we just need to live with and each decide individually, (or through collective organizations) when it's worth sticking your neck out and fighting for accuracy, against spam, against plagiarism, etc.
If someone downvotes (flags) potentially harmful medical advice to properly curate it as junk, I support that use 100%. They should absolutely take the time to post refuting information in the comments I'd hope.
Interesting. I didn't know about busy.org. I'll have to check it out.
As for the functionality of the downvote button here being fine, I have to disagree. It took me awhile to even figure out that that's what was even meant when the word downvote was used. The least that could be done is to add text within the button so that when you click it, downvote is listed as one of the reasons. A down arrow instead of a flag would be even more helpful.
Also, the point of this post was to get people to consider the full costs of the attitude that says we should just count on some people sticking their necks out to downvote people. Is downvoting even compensated and thus incentivized? And are we okay with the people out there getting hurt because of a desire to avoid coding an actual downvote button?
I agree with you on the downvote/flag clarity. I'm ok with the actual functionality, but presentation could use some changes. By functionality I mean that when the flag is used, it does exactly the same things as a vote, just with negative values. So I think the (+)(-) correlation is good. There needs to be less of a stigma applied to the flag and rebranding it as a downvote is a good first step.
I'd be worried about incentivizing the downvote. Collusive rings could then profit via downvoting while harming content creators. Right now flagging actually costs vote power with no benefit to the person doing the flagging. This is kind of a good way to reign in abusive flagging. It leaves it more in the realm of people utilizing it altruistically such as the medical use case you've described.
Check out how "flagging" can be a crippling flaw for Steem's long-term potential... https://steemit.com/steemit/@robertgenito/steem-s-1-crippling-flaw
I respectfully disagree.
The Steem platform is based on consensus and a voting mechanism. That doesn't mean that everyone's vote automatically delivers a certain level of reward. Consider a national election. 50 million people cast votes, a candidate wins with 28 million votes. Under this logic we've just censored 22 million people because their votes resulted in no net gain. I don't see that as the case.
Further, removal of this tool leaves no means of dealing with identity fraud, plagiarism, spam and abuse. For example, there is no systematic means of categorizing pornography and nsfw content. Perhaps you disagree with doing that anyway and would rather it be uncensored and automatically displayed next to other content. That was the case previously, and would be a major impediment to Steemits success. However this content is now voluntarily tagged and properly controlled only due to the fact that flags exist.
Good Steemians are using flags to combat pools wherein users simply post 100 comments with no more content than counting the numbers 1-100. Each comment receiving 3000+ up votes and takes thousands of dollars for these collusive rings.
I happily flagged a weeks worth of posts of an author who was posting illustrations found online and claiming they had drawn them. You're suggesting that people should keep those rewards, presumably because it's not wrong until you get caught.
Steemit is a website. It will not be free of censorship. Even now Steemit takes steps such as blocking accounts utilized by children because it is in violation of laws if it does not. And even so I hesitate to label flagging as censorship because it is community driven.
If a political rally is broken up by the military, that's censorship. If a political rally is drowned out by the chants of a counter protest, that is not censorship. How would you quiet the counter protest without censoring them? In a decentralized setting the loudest voice wins, and here volume = Steem power.
But the more important aspect is that Steemit.com is not the Steem blockchain. It is the blockchain that is decentralized and censorship resistant. Your content cannot be deleted. Anyone can make a website with different display rules. Someone can set up UnderSteem where the most flagged posts rank highest on a trending page!
People can already import a feed of Steem content into a Wordpress plugin. Certainly they're under no obligation to display all the content on the blockchain. Choosing not to display something is not equivalent to censoring it. Even on Steemit itself, those posts flagged to negative still remain accessible and easy to click. I find myself exploring them to see what's up! Lessened visibility is not censorship, and all financial rewards are subject to the consensus of everyone's aggregate voting. We may get the sense that our votes are worth a certain amount at a given point in time, but we're just seeing the consensus being calculated on the fly. No one ever has Steem they've earned taken away, there is no mechanism to claw it back from your wallet. Pending payouts are subject to change.
If I send an article about flat earth theory to National Geographic and 90% of their editorial board chooses not to publish it, they have not censored me or taken away the money I should have earned for writing an article. They have simply 'flagged' it as unfit for their publication. We, all of us, the Steemit board, sometimes do the same.
There's a decided lack of easily accessible information about exactly how flagging/downvoting works. There's also conflicting etiquette regarding it. I've been piecing it together over the day or two since being here. As far as I could find out last night there is essentially a reward penalty for down voting. You use voting power as you would with an upvote, but you get no curating reward.