You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Stopping Downvote Censorship on Steemit: Suggestions For a New Model for Anti-Spam That Prevents Malicious Censorship
I have just watched a guy crying his eyes out because of what looks a lot like misbehaviour by the people running the steemcleaners profile. https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@aaronmda/44vqeg-steemcleaners-multiple-accounts-for-only-upvoting-themselves-and-downvoting-others
I've been following that as well. I think the problem with some of what you are suggesting is that there has to be a decision on what people want.
If you want a decentralized platform then that is what you will get. Every person/group of people will be free to vote their stake however they like, for any reason, as there are no official rules on what is or is not allowed. You can upvote what you want or flag what you want, its your stake and your decision how to use it. If what you are doing is incredibly egregious/unpopular/so far outside of the social norms then the community will react accordingly.
If you don't want that, then you are saying you want a more centralized platform where there are people officially in charge who set rules on what content is or is not allowed and then come up with an official way to police it. You can't say its the witnesses job to monitor that, trying to sort through the spam/plagiarism/etc.. takes a lot of time and dedication and you can't just force those people to do it. I think a lot of people are here for the freedom to post whatever they like without some central body saying they cant. If you want to say a flag is censorship well that brings me to my next point-
I don't really believe that flagging a post on Steemit is censorship. If youtube or facebook censors you they remove your content and absolutely nobody has a chance to view it. If someone flags you on steemit the worst case scenario is that your post is greyed out, thus requiring one extra click to make it visible. Is having to click a mouse 1 extra time really censorship? I can still follow any author I like and view all their posts, it just involves marginally more clicking.
Not to mention that only applies to the steemit client, not any of the other ways to view the blockchain like steemd where the content isn't changed at all.
The monetary rewards from a post are something different, the rewards aren't yours until they are payed out so the person hasn't earned anything at that point. Nobody is entitled to rewards for posting, it comes down how the community feels. If more steempower upvotes your post as opposed to flags it, you get paid. If more steempower decides they really disliked your post, you dont. That's sort of the premise of decentralized platform, the community and all its members get to vote with their stake on what gets rewarded or what doesn't.
Just my 2 cents on the matter at least...
the existence of a decentralised platform is not dependent on the ability to downvote and hide posts.
as i made clear in my post here, the terms for steemit specifically state that illegal activity will not be allowed and also behavior that:
since it is the terms of service that underly the actual activity on the website, we should go by those primarily and not by what individual commentators might be thinking.
in order for the terms of service to be enforceable there needs to be a method in place to enforce them - however, I am not actually aware of what that is - are you?
Again, I did not say that witnesses should police the network.
I don't see this as a binary situation of 'centralised' or 'decentralised' when it comes to policy enforcement. Presently we have a policy that is not really being enforced and it ultimately being applied 'vigilante' style according to whatever anyone feels like doing at the time. In a sense maybe that is anarchistic - but that doesn't mean that there can't be a more balanced approach found and used here.
I am not advocating for a corporate style 'police team' and I am not advocating for the status quo. If anything, I am talking about some kind of decentralised approach that has actually defined policy, that activity can be measured against - instead of different people just making up rules as they go and attempting to use the power of their bank statement to 'make it so'. The current situation has more in common with oligarchy than it does with anarchism.
I would say that there is no official way to enforce the terms of service, just the community members and their decision to vote their stake is what decides what content is allowed or not.
It seems like you are leaning towards a system where the flag is removed from the average user, as you feel it leads to vigilantism. If you want to get rid of user flagging, thats fine, but then how do you go about removing harmful content if not through some sort of official centralized approach of policing content?
Not saying I have the answer to it, I just appreciate the discussion. If you want to remove the flag as a way for an individual user to make their voice heard on what they do/do not want to see, what replaces it? If you do want to leave people their flagging ability, what is to prevent them from using it however they like other than again having some group of people in charge who decide what is an appropriate use and what isn't?
I have a feeling that you haven't actually read my original post, since I already explained my draft solution in there. It is not a complete solution and I left it that way deliberately in the spirit of community co-creation.
one of the issues with the website having an unenforceable TOS is that in the event that people use the network for serious crime, the website operators may become liable for that and the site could be shut down by government. I don't think that is a good thing from the user's perspective as they would surely lose their money value in the blink of an eye.
I can imagine improved solutions that both do and do not involve downvoting and in both cases that do and do not involve 'spam cops'.
A basic improvement to the current situation would be to make the downvoted posts visible in a separate list, as already stated, to allow transparent viewing of how downvotes are being used. That first step will improve the use of downvotes since it will be obvious to others on the network who is acting in a way that they respect with downvotes and who isn't.
Once the posts are downvoted, they should not be hidden - but instead should be entered into a list from which it can be further ascertained whether they really do violate the intended principles of the site or not. That way there can be a consensus formed before something is hidden - and not just the current situation where those with the most resources can silence others and even destroy their reputation totally.
In other words, you could keep the system almost as it is now, except that there is an extra stage where the community has a specific opportunity to decide on the outcome, instead of it being decided immediately on the basis of wealth.
Such a system could still be abused by the use of bots - but since that is specifically against the terms of service, I 'imagine' that some kind of action would be taken in that instance. If the terms of service are just going to be completely denied then I would not recommend anyone to invest in the system, period.
I did read the original post, just lost my train of thought in the replies apparently. As far as the Rogues Gallery or separate list idea, you say that the community will come to a consensus from that point going forward on what should be hidden, who are the people that decide? It seems like you are not a big fan of Steem Power being the deciding factor, were you suggesting just every person who views the post gets sort of a "yes this should be hidden" or "No, this should still be visible" vote?
my aim is simply to facilitate real balance. real balance is defined as 'no part or aspect is being overpowered'. everyone who is using the site has agreed to the TOS and so if they are forced to go outside of the TOS then they are being pushed out of balance.
I absolutely am 100% against steem power being the deciding factor here, yes. Steem power can be purchased using fiat currency and thus can be entirely dominated by whoever has the most resources. It is like our current court systems but even WORSE, since there isn't even an attempt being made to put up a facade of independence.. It is simply that whoever has the most 'money' has the most power. That is the total opposite of balance.
I do not know what the best solution is in this case, I am a fan of trying different options and reaching an agreement on what works the best. The idea you put forward with regards up/down votes on the decision could be one option that might work.. But it will have it's flaws too. At least by requiring the deciding factor to be the number of votes and those votes having not been bought by 'money' then there is a chance of mitigating the problem of oligarchic domination.
I feel at the moment that there are enough people here who care about liberty and justice that such a system might work ok - however, I see a repeating trend on all new social sites I use that get big and it will possibly cause a problem at some point. There are enough groups in society who have no care at all about such things as balance and justice that once they all adopt new platforms we are stuck again with the same old battle lines where any weapon available can and will be used to continue their fights... So a simple up/down vote in the community may not be enough - but at least it is a start.
I think a 1 vote per 1 person is just as easily abused, if not more. I would prefer to give the bigger say to people with more skin in the game as opposed to the person who can make the most accounts or has the most friends.
Anywho, I guess this was all a long way of saying that I really don't have a problem with the system as it is now. It is by no means perfect, but I would rather have the ability to upvote and flag as I like without someone in charge to tell me what I can and can't do. If someone flags a post of mine and I felt it wasn't deserved I'll bring it to the attention of the community. If it seems like the majority of people are against me, then maybe I was in the wrong to begin with and I'll move on to something else.
I do appreciate the open discussion, part of why I love Steemit.