You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: DON'T LET GREED DESTROY STEEMIT
We need to be able to delegate our voting power to curation pools that downvote people who violate the voluntary community rules. Once we do that we won't have to worry about upvote/downvote wars. Experts with AI algorithms will catch people using shady tactics like this and punish them with a downvote or blacklist. Blacklisting accounts for automatic downvote by a voting pool will allow us to ban accounts in a decentralized way. I'm sure the team already knows this and is working on it, which is why they're not responding to much of this.
Where are these so called voluntary community rules written down?
The only place I have seen voluntary rules is in the FAQ of steemit, and when you click the downvote button it says why you should use it, but it does not say you can not down vote for only those reasons. The FAQ says you can downvote/upvote for whatever reason you want.
So steemit should become like Facebook and twitter, and basically shadow ban people, censor people?
The steemit FAQ tells us our vote is ours to do with as we want. If some one wants to buy votes, there is no rule against it. If someone want to sell votes there is no rule against it. If someone want to downvote a person into oblivion because of a typo there is no rule against it. If someone disagrees with the payout they can downvote it. If someone want to give a $200.00 upvote to a post or a comment there is no rule against it. There are No rules governing how a vote can be used. If people want someone telling them how to use their vote they can go to facebook, google, youtube, or any of the other hundreds of social media sites that tell you how often, who for, and how to use and not use your vote power, or thumbs up power.
People need to stop telling people how to use their vote. If you disagree with a payout, do like @berniesanders and others and use your vote power. Don't tell me how to use my vote power.
This. So much this.
It's like... you can't have laissez-faire capitalism (which is what STEEM is based on) and socialist policies (who's to say what you do with what you factually own) at the same time.
Keys are information, and as such can't be owned. Cryptocurrency isn't property, because signed transactions are just speech.
Example: Let's say I put a million steem into an account, and I know the password to it. Let's say I then tell you the password, and now we both know it.
Whose "property" is that million steem? If you transfer it out of that account, are you depriving me of what I own? If I transfer it, am I depriving you of what you own?
It's all just speech.
Yours. Giving someone your bank account password doesn't mean you cease owning the assets therein.
Yes.
No, you're just managing your assets.
This is exactly how money works. You exchange information (printed on a piece of paper or digital) for goods and services.
Your conception of “ownership” does not seem to be shared by most proponents of cryptocurrency.
“my” bank account is mine because it has my name on it. “my” tokens are only mine because i have knowledge of the key.
And yet even your bank account isn't yours - sure, it has a name on it, but that's just information, right?
And information should be freeeeee, maaaaan.
What a bunch of crock.
So you don't own your bank account number? What if you just gave it to me would I be stealing?? Cmon man.
Nobody owns any number.
Furthermore, knowledge of a bank account number is not title to the assets therein. Knowledge of a private key absolutely and unambiguously is.
Property is a term of law. Laws are the rules we enforce around each other. If you're not talking about how we should act then it's just a number, and you are just atoms. True. What is the point of your argument?
That’s a very good point. A persons freedom of choice to vote needs to be protected. It’s the thing that sets Steem apart from most other blockchains.
You seem to have misunderstood me. The voluntary community rules come out of people delegating their voting power to a curator they trust to enforce the rules they agree with. Bullies get hit back, therefore there's more money for those who are civil. If you don't like how someone downvotes, delegate to someone who will cancel out their bad downvotes. This is a decentralized company. Downvotes don't take away money, they just change how money is distributed. I'm not telling you how to use it. I'm saying you make your own rules, so enforce them or delegate to someone who will. You're still free to vote however you want - that's the point.
I am not sure I disagreed with much of what you said. It is your vote and yours to do with as you please. The only part I think I disagreed with was the part of community rules.
I did not say You could not do that. I disagree with any group censorship/blacklisting and any one telling me that WE which is a term that includes ME what I should do with my vote.
So mostly a misunderstanding of word usage I guess. So Delegate your vote, build your downvoting pool, and censor who you like.
That sounds encouraging. Would be nice if they could share this information.
A good post! Suffer mostly beginners. Very many good posts are not noticed.This is not fair...Good luck to you @spectrumecons !
Thank you for your support @bitboys.
There should also be some sort of repeat offender "jail" where we could punish accounts that violate and abuse the reward pools. It would lock up their account for a certain amount of time after they receive some sort of initial warning. After the first warning they could do a short 12 hour ban or something and then if they keep violating the code then we could do a several day or week long ban.
Facebook places bans on accounts that they deem to be violating their rules or abusing the system.
i think it can also be applied here if the abuse become uncontrollable
Ultimately that sort of power would be abused and probably result in steemit having many of the same problems as Twitter and Facebook.
Create a system of control, and it will be abused.
Why are people here? I came here to network and further individual liberty, and I was tired of having my content filtered and seeing other friend's punished for their content.
Other people are here solely to make a profit. They put their money into the system, and they expect a return on that money. I don't blame them either. Sellers need buyers too, so the system is purposefully setup to encourage investors.
Steemit has its struggles, but there is no centralized censorship here. This place will never be perfect, and there will always be accounts with a lot of power that will be abused. Whales can fight, we can all fight, and there can be flagging wars too.
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."
I like that quote. Who said that?
Thomas Jefferson
To be honest, that is one of the things that actually makes me think twice about this platform. I'lluse it because that is actually a reasonable platform for... everything actually but (big BUT) when you have investors and creators in the same place, you will always have this strange atmosphere. Anzway, I don't really care who reads my stuff. If it is an investor or a leech, I'll justhandle it as business. If it is an other creator than Ill handdle it as an oportunity.
This would be pretty interesting, but I think this is what reputation is for. Once a users' reputation reaches a certain level, all future posts will be hidden by default.
I would love this, especially if there was a page showing all the people in jail with the ability to throw digital rotten tomatoes at them somehow.
Well, there are already a few of these in place, such as @steemcleaners that downvote a lot of spam and plagiarism. Feel free to delegate some SP to them if you like their work :)