You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steemit and the Fractal Society

in #steemit5 years ago (edited)

Now that's an impressive train of thought you shared here. I agree to it. It shook my perspective a little bit but I have to agree to it (if the research you did is true as I haven't had the time to do it myself).

As for Steemit, the way I see it is a bit more simplistic.

There are two types of individuals on the platform. Those that have all their basic needs met and can think of higher and more qualitative ways to bring value to the platform and to the other users while making some bucks in the process and those who don't have all those basic needs met (or somehow they have them amiss) and try to gain as much as possible by any means necessary.

But things are a lot more complicated than this simplistic view. It's not just the needs but also the - often bad - 'education' which arises from not having enough of what is needed, and I'm not talking only about physical needs here.

If Steemit wants itself as something of quality, my guess is that we need some sort of organism / mechanism of limiting the - 'by any means necessary' - type of actions.

For example, I would ban all bots and try to make the platform human only, as my guess is that that was the initial intention of the developers. Though that won't completely eliminate the low quality, but for sure will make it fair in more than one way.

Sort:  

Yes, we need some source of balance and equilibrium - that "mechanism of limiting the 'by any means necessary' - type of actions", as you put it.

What about extending the platform with a new "institution". We have the witnesses that guard the inner workings, the mechanical part of the platform. What about we link that with some formal "content witnesses" roles. Imagine having 21 positions of "content witnesses" that would be the elected (somehow, to be decided) and that would be the guardians of the content-quality ?

Is there any arrangement under which that could work and bring value to the platform ?

What about extending the platform with a new "institution"

You are dreaming. Get your head out of the clouds, man. We haven't even had a minor hard fork to help streamline new account creation that was supposedly almost done a year ago. The entire 2017 roadmap was a complete fail. No milestones delivered at all.

No, we are not going to get a new institution on this platform, at least not anytime in the new few years.

We have to make do with what we have, which is either some sort of balance by peer review and downvoting or no balance at all, and the whole thing going off the rails (the latter being, for the most part, what has been happening).

Now that I see your proposal I understand your objection to peer downvoting, in that you think you have an even better solution (and perhaps you do). But that's not the reality of the situation. The reality is that we have the tools we have, and we have to decide what to do with them.

Thank you for your answer, I think I see what you mean.

My conclusion is that:

  1. I need to seriously study the SMT whitepaper (skimmed over it only and couldn't quite wrap my head around it)
  2. Come to the next event (SteemFest ?) where Steemit Inc. and some major witnesses are present and "take the temperature", see where this platform is headed ...

That leads me to think about censorship - how do you avoid it when everyone is subjective?

But if I go further and think about an idea from the entropy concept, which is that in an isolated system (like steemit) the natural way is for things to go from order to disorder, I guess that some sort of 'content witnesses' are necessary.

From what I've seen so far, our minds (or at least I can say for sure my mind), left to their own devices, tend to go towards disorder rather than order. And I think that happens with most of us if left in our natural state of freedom. So freedom must come with responsibility and discipline, right? Even if we don't like it.

You are absolutely spot on! It is essential to keep in mind the entropy principle: no dynamic system (specifically one populated by humans like Steem) can avoid evolving toward chaos. If the system is to survive there need to be continuous adjustments and mechanisms to "correct the trajectory"

This makes me think that I should make a post about Systems Theory and the Viable System Model of Stafford Beer

If Steem is to survive and thrive it should pay attention to this and try to make sure it implements each and every one of the 5 sub-systems of the VSM

Vsm.gif

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.05
JST 0.022
BTC 16795.16
ETH 1229.20
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.06