RE: A question for the Steemit community about the mechanism of downvoting and the dangers of charlatans
I think it is far too early in this experiment to create governance to protect people.
Start moderating the heck out of everything right now and you have a platform that has no real differenciation from any other except that it is built on a blockchain. Is that enough? Sure... Why not?
But I think we should look at how the concept of reputation as manifested in up- and down-votes can regulate these things and stay true to the experiment.
I have to notice that you did not give any concrete examples of charlatans. Worried about getting down-voted?
Let's let the experiment run on for a bit. There are spontaneously arising governance experiments here already.
If you want to call on some nebulous central authority to fix things... Well... Facebook exists already.
I tried to make it clear that I'm not calling for any one fix, just some change on what exists now, based on what I'm observing right now. I'm definitely not calling for heavy moderation or top-down governance. I'm simply suggesting that it might be a good idea to let flagging be actual flagging and to adopt an anonymous downvote button for the purposes of decentralized distributed moderation, or to at least make it clear that the flagging button is to officially be adopted as a downvote button.
Let's not make the slippery slope argument that one small change will lead to much larger changes.
Okay, I see.
On an unrelated note, I just took a glance at your other articles, and I see you are puttin gcontent out there on universal basic income.
I don't have a coherent position on this concept right now, but it is interesting. I will keep an eye out for the commentary you put out on this.
Best wishes!