RE: Stopping Downvote Censorship on Steemit: Suggestions For a New Model for Anti-Spam That Prevents Malicious Censorship
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.