RE: A call to separation of powers in Steemit
To tell the truth although I haven't seen any repercussions directly I'm somewhat hesitant to speak out against the "predictions" of a whale like The Dollar Vigilante for fear that his pals including @ned and @dantheman might put the hammer to me. To their credit everything's been cool.
But keep in mind another clear sign of totalitarianism is the chilling effect. How many are afraid to voice an opinion or enter into debate when the outcome could turn into irreparable damage to one's reputation?
It's interesting that it's that very same mechanism which has kept trolling on this platform to a bare minimum. Compare the repartee on most posts here to comments on a YouTube video. Night and Day.
So I'm in complete agreement with @masteryoda that there needs to be a division of power to help balance the needs of those who would like to challenge an authority figure versus letting every jerk out there tear down people for no reason. Edit: to clarify I'm calling comment trolls jerks. Not anybody in particular.
The separation of powers could dovetail nicely with a suggestion made by @thecryptofiend a number of days ago. After all if Ned and Dan stop voting that's a lot of Steempower left dormant. The proposal is to lend the voting power of some of the largest Steemit accounts to a rotating elected group of curators who could take the time to spread the upvotes while benefiting from the curation rewards.
Thank you for making a stand Master Yoda. I believe you're making a difference just by standing up and being heard.
Unfortunately, when we get to the point where people are afraid to speak their minds in fear of retaliation that’s a very bad sign.
The general sentiment is very important in social platforms, if it is oppression then chances of success are nonexistent.
I made this post in a positive attempt to make the debate public, which can only be a good thing.
Thank you for your courageous and incisive comment.
when i started to censor myself, this began to seem like just another crappy job where i was waiting for the boss to call me into the office and fire me. if i'm going to have a crappy job like that, i can make way more money somewhere else. i'll have fewer intelligent friends to talk to but, at least i won't have to watch some of the best subjected to the tantrums of unthinking, ignorant brutes.
i have been expecting to be crushed by some easily offended child for a while now. i don't know if i'll stick around to feel the relief of the man who, expecting it for months, was finally hauled off to gulag to be with his neighbors.
who wants to live with the threat of some indolent miscreant coming to take away everything that you've worked for, and even the community has indicated that you are worth.
what are these people contributing but turmoil? their posts are worthless and would be seen to be so were it not for the armies of sycophants lapping up the toxic pablum they excrete that they label as gold.
we should be at least able to vote on their downvotes. if enough of the community votes against their power they should be stripped of it. i am not saying they should be crushed into oblivion as they do to others but, that they that abuse their power should have it taken away.
Wow, these are some very powerful words.
Thank you very much, I'm glad to have the support of such wonderful people here.
i'll do my best until i am crushed.
I think any larger undertaking needs a division of labor and a division of power, the suggestion that people can apply to be elected and be voted on and then after three months would have more public confidence.
Obviously the platform needs a strategic focus as well as in policy decisions and direction so the executive branch should have the right to publicly veto any proposals but to do this publicly with open transparency . . .
At least then we can see that more than a few personalities are involved : )
just my two cents worth ; )
Bravo! 👏👏👏👏👏
Has trolling been used as a thin veneer to cover up the convoluted logic, totalitarian feel & missing details of Steemit?? (by people like @ned and @dantheman )
I think credit where it's due. Trolling and spamming seem to come naturally to all parts of the internet. Successfully controlling those issues is no small feat. I rather think the totalitarian bent is a byproduct of policing those annoyances. Improvements in governance could maintain a check on bad actors while limiting the power of individuals in the ruling class.
Even a small change to how flagging works might be key. We already have voting percentages.
So why not limit the flagging power based on the number of flaggers? Perhaps 10% base with +10% available to each subsequent flagger. Therefore consensus flagging would do the most damage while a single outlier can't ruin somebody.
I think this whole anyone can flag model is wrong, it would be better to use a report to moderators feature. After which a group of trusted moderators (witness like selection?) can vote to flag or not (as @ reddust mentioned in his comment). If a post is flagged by moderators, the reward should go to 0 directly with some impact on reputation as well. There is no such thing in my mind as partially flaggable content.
@dgiors I cannot reply to your comment directly because of the nesting limitations so I hope you’ll see my reply here. First I think flagging and downvoting should be two separate things. Flagging is for abusive content, downvoting is an expression of one’s opinion.
Flagging should have clear rules, and should not be subjective.
The main point I’m trying to make in this post, is that allowing Steemit inc related individuals to vote on content and witnesses is a clear conflict of interest.
Agreed except for the part about no such thing as partially flaggable.
We either need a downvote as an alternative to flagging or continue to use flagging in that capacity when it fits.
I'm thinking user downvote (or flag) should be nerfed quite a bit so that it's still the moderator's prerogative to literally take down a post.
I suppose if there were no user flagging the comments section would still provide a place for a dissenting view or feedback. The thing is if I see posts here offering unsafe medical advice or the like I want to not only speak out against it but cast a vote of no confidence.
Edit continued: But to a moderator two users with differing opinions about what's acceptable medical practice could only become viewed as biased whichever side they come down upon.
Can anybody be considered the oracle of all things true? Certainly no moderator should assume such a role.
So while upvote is a powerful tool for demarcating the wisdom of the crowd the ability to downvote should also come as an important tool for judging the social consensus.
I like your last 2 sentences. AGREED. Evolution not revolution - though that would be nice too :)
Bots would run wild I think with that one, wouldn't they?
I get your point. 9 puny bots could pave the way for a huge 100% vote. Then there must be another way.
Powerful words @mindhunter but sadly true.
I'm reminded of yankees who move to the south then complain that "we did it differently back where I came from".