RE: An Objective Look at Vote Buying Bots and Some Other Steemit Stuff
My main interest in Steemit was always if it could solve the "Quality"-problem. The first experiments with this i think was Slashdot's karma system. I am still interested in systems that can support artists directly, but as for quality, Steemit has convinced me that humans do excatly the same way online as they do in the flesh.
The corruption you talk about, because that is what it is when you go nepotist behind the curtains in what should be an open system, the creation of institutions (like Steemcleaners and Curie), the endless opportunism and lick-ass attitude towards the powerful... it all mirrors how any other state is created. Funny to have been here for two years to see the anarchist commune become thrifty pirate-gangster haven (actually what happened at Christiania here in Copenhagen), but not that funny when you could see this happen every other place on the globe.
I have earned more from Bitcoin donations from people on other free sites (Diaspora), than I have earned here with my comic and my art (which is professional quality). It is not that I have not benefited from the community, I have very much - two people translating my comic and helping out, a few large donations, actually lots of funny connections and intelligent people, but money-wise I can see that communication and not quality is what gives you money. That is exactly like the art world I left five years ago.
I think this place needs a middle class. It wouldn't make Steemit Utopia (it hasn't done so elsewhere), but it would make the system less arbitrary and erratic. I just use Steemit as another platform to promote my art. I early on saw how people stopped voting for power-downers, so I didn't. I have powered up instead to see if I can get closer to actually let my self-vote count for something.
Anyways... before I write a whole post. Interesting things you write - mostly not new to me but at least we share view on a lot of things. I hate the vote-selling because it is not promoting quality. I know how the world work, but that doesn't mean I like it.
This comment was better than my post. I, too, think that Steemit has failed in rewarding quality.
Even if I recognize the Subjectivity of Value problem.
Hehe, thanks. There will of course never be complete consensus on quality and there doesn't have to be. It would be a strange and boring world if there ever was. But most of us can judge competence and effort, and if different circles of consensus could go together upvoting that it would be great. I imagine that a broader range of wealthy people could ensure that, but of course I don't know. Would be interesting to see if it ever happened.
Maybe I should try to take up the subject. Nothing attracts people as a post about Steemit :) and the quality discussion is seldom discussed seriously. Mostly it is people being pissed that their master-post get less than the charming amateur.