You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Suggestions on how we could improve Steem: Topic:Blacklists, blacklisting
I personally witnessed them telling a member that their content was not interesting enough. Very subjective.
By this standard, they should be downvoting all accounts they find boring.
The "restitution" posts should be simply "not criminal" and forcing people to post EVERY DAY also seems unreasonable. Most people don't post EVERY DAY, and failing to post EVERY DAY is not considered a criminal violation generally (why then make posting EVERY DAY a requirement?).
Many sites simply impose a suspension period lasting from 3 days up to 30 days. That seems much more reasonable.
Yes, I have seen some outrageously long sentences. And yes, the requirement was to post every day for every one of those days in order to be considered for an appeal. LOL I mean, how can it even be serious? And, they are so rude about it. But apparently they've quit Steem now and have brought that circus over to Hive. It serves as yet another example of centralized power and censorship. I don't understand why people are so blind!
I think I may have found a better framework to replace FEUDAL-OLIGARCHY.
Click to watch 18 minutes,
Is Holacracy a significantly improved framework for Democracy?
Does Holacracy make military style (corporate) Authoritarian (cult-of-personality) systems OBSOLETE?
Can we finally break free from our HERO-LEADER brainwashing?
Steemcleaners et al would probably argue that they were using a Holacracy Model.
Which, would be fine(things need to be fluent in order to be/remain effective) as long as it is fully transparent, communicated, and other people (other than the executors of blacklists) can have input/power to improve the system.
I think what happened is that they were stretched very thin(not enough manpower). Fingers in too many things. This resulted in corners being cut. Using the excuse that it was OK because there was not enough time to do more/other things.
However, I think if you make a commitment to do a task, you need to carry it through. You can't make a commitment on a bunch of things and then start cutting corners which compromise ethics/function. Transparency could help with this. So could receiving input from members.
I would personally have put out a call for help from the community before I would compromise the values/mission of what I was trying to do. (Assuming the best of intentions.)
I sometimes get the impression that people get so lost in the thick of it, that they lose sight of the bigger picture. In which case, again, it would be beneficial to allow other members to have input/power.
I think allowing each member to control their interface/content would probably be the most Holacrastic model. We as members have governance over whatever content we see/don't see.
It seems like the best solution to me.
If we have an opt-in/out blacklist, it must only be for the purpose stated. It must be accurate. There should be some sort of appeal process to allow people to redeem any bad behavior. I wouldn't want to opt into a blacklist without knowing 100% that it was fair. Right now, I don't know that with certainty.
I still think a warning system would be appropriate too. If people knowingly do things after being warned, that is an entirely different scenario.
I feel like we keep coming back to the same solutions. No?
In other news, I hear Steemcleaners is removing/has removed their auto downvoting. It really struck me as unethical to take earnings from people in a "guilty until proven innocent" system. It also appeared to be a conflict of interest. Blacklisting people should not be incentivized.
There must be another way to pay for developers/developments. I am happy that the auto downvote was removed. It's a step in the right direction.
Yep, I agree.
The initial example [of Holacracy] in the TED talk was a story about a novice pilot who noticed a "low-voltage" warning light.
This warning light was small, and all other indicators were nominal (indicating no problems).
The perceived "danger" was small, since there didn't seem to be a "consensus" of warning lights so the pilot ignored the "low-voltage" indicator.
This turned out to be a critical error in judgement, and the plane nearly crash landed.
This served as a primary impetus to develop the Holacracy framework.
Can a system be designed that gives every warning light a fair hearing?
In practice this would mean a logical and fair appeals processes would be accessible to every member of "the whole".
I learned this when I became an accountant. If you are out even 1 cent, it can be an indicator of being out thousands of dollars (because of there being two sides). It's important to pay attention. And besides, everyone has something to contribute even if it is just a challenging opinion(challenging opinions often bring out problems..that's a good thing).
I think if people adopted that attitude, that everyone has a voice and can contribute in some way, things could be better.
Yes, and right now as it stands the appeal process is not available to every member. That is so incredibly wrong.
Well stated.