I am a firm believer that the true utility of this platform is yet to be discovered. Currently, still in its infancy, Steemit feels uncoordinated and open to exploitation. It exists as a mismatch of unrelated disingenuous posts written with a financial incentive. Whilst there are absolutely great content creators on this platform and I don't want to disparage anyone, in particular, something doesn't quite feel right. This made me think - how can Steemit be used for good?
It was hard to find accurate data about the number of users currently on Steemit - So I did some light digging and can say that it ranges but stands roughly at an average of 70,000 daily active users at over 1,000,000 accounts.
[https://steemit.com/steemit/@penguinpablo/daily-steem-stats-report-march-3-2018-17-795-new-accounts-yesterday]
[https://steemit.com/steemit/@aggroed/2-million-steemit-accounts-by-dec-2018]
Assuming that we have yet to reach anything near the potential adoption rate that is a massive pool of people with the potential to do good work.
It's worth saying that this idea involves and concerns environmental issues but its basic principle could be applied to any field.
Operation citizen journalist
The enemy of social mobilization is misinformation. We have at our hands the ability to curate information and so much more. If we are willing to accept the premise that traditional media has obligations to the companies that advertise on its platform - which we should: - --
[https://archive.ama.org/Archive/AboutAMA/Pages/AMA%20Publications/AMA%20Journals/Journal%20of%20Marketing%20Research/TOCs/SUM_2012.1/impact_advertising_media_bias.aspx]
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.719.361&rep=rep1&type=pdf]
Then we must also accept that without this influence there comes an ability to remain unbias. Steemit allows the individual to promote relevant information without considering their overarching loyalties. It allows the individual to become both the creator and the arbiter of information. One thing I think that Steemit is able to do which traditional media cannot do is breakdown nuance. It is possible to invest time in the collection of evidence for extremely specific issues. This specificity is often lost today - we see this most clearly in the ever-waging war between Left & Right politics. Which often installs people with a deep distrust of opposing parties - irrespective of the fact that on many issues they actually agree.
This post actually came after a conversation I had on here in which it became difficult to separate between competing ideas. Both parties were environmental conservationists who clearly had an interest in climate change - however, it became difficult to marry both their philosophies because the foundation of their arguments rested on different priorities. A wanted to reduce climate change - B wanted to reduce pollution. Irrespective of the fact that these are similar in effect and execution a consensus regarding best action couldn't be reached - until a conversation was had.
If you can take a step back and look at Steemit as what it could be, as opposed to what it is, then it is easy to get optimistic. What is potentially happening is a shift in the control of information. With the careful cultivation of issue-specific communities we have the power to regain control of public narratives.
I say again - we have the power to regain control of public narratives.
Steemit Optimism and the Environment
Outting, shaming, and boycotts.
With 2017 aptly named the 'Year of the boycott' it is clear that public outrage has become a powerful tool is mediating between the will of the people and the objectives of companies and institutions. Whilst I think it would be hard to argue that this particular method of activism/action has been hijacked by agenda-driven politicians - its effectiveness is a clear indicator of its possible application to environmental issues.
Steemit adds an extra dimension to this - it allows a community to quantify its agreement with a specific boycott with post engagement - you might be thinking that this is not specific to Steemit - and you would be right. However, Steemit's ecosystem doesn't just incorporate this - it economizes it. If we can stipulate that money is power - then these boycotts have the potential to become extremely powerful. Evidence justifying the boycott can be displayed and important discussions regarding the validity of that evidence can exist. The separation of information and control is fundamental to a free society. This is a reoccurring theme in both philosophy and sociology.
I will admit that the financial incentivization of mass boycotts has the potential to be problematic and this - as well as many other issues - will be addressed in a separate post. Briefly, however, it is worth saying that a large proportion of these issues are resolved by the creation of an active community - equipped with an arsenal of template, guidelines and recommendation. There is also the fact that these posts gain power/influence if they are agreed with - this is one of the most beautiful things about an active approval system (Sending SBS) as opposed to a passive one. It is protected against conflation between popularity and agreement.
Research - The audience, promotor, and curator
Academic research is quite often relegated to Google Scholar archives. Destined to a life of dust-covered irrelevancy and economic redundancy. The world of academic commentary is not a lucrative one - it is also only that vests itself almost entirely in a single -university- infrastructure. If we view this in the light of what has been said prior in this post we have painted a grim picture. Important information is not financially beneficial unless - It fits a specific narrative - Is associated with a specific name - Is incorporated into a business model - Forms part of research conducted as part of a grant/scholarship.
Steemit has the potential to change this. I understand that this seems optimistic and outlandish but it is true. We have the power to cultivate a community here that could revolutionise the peer-review process. Admittedly not in an effort to replace it all together but rather working in tandem. The use of tags on this website render specific communities feeling disengaged with one another. They are far too nebulous in the application and lead to the same issue I was describing earlier (Climate Change v Pollution) Perhaps this is something that would have to be changed to encourage this kind of thinking but I digress.
The ultimate objective of this idea is to ensure the unrestricted flow of important information - to reward the creators of that information - and to better coordinate appropriate responses to this information. When restricted to communities of individuals who both A) Have a rapport with one another B) Are interested in that specific field - a duality of incentives are born. In that, there is a financial insentive for free research that has the potential to become even more financially beneficial based on the quality of that research.
This has the potential to be so useful in the environmental field that I can hardly stress it enough. If you are an academic at a university or research institution I encourage you and your colleagues to get involved on Steemit and to help create this community. Starting June 1st this idea will occupy the majority of my spare time.
Funding, It's not as easy as you think
Every issue I have mentioned earlier that involves the control of information is made worse here. Research costs money - It simple but its true. That means each time a project is funded - it is done so with the implicit control of a 3rd party. If my earlier calculations were correct are there are currently only 1,000,000 Steem accounts, then the potential for funding to be generated through Steem is massive. Research conducted in response to specific issues voiced by a community could be paid for by the community. In engaging with the community as a way to better define the target of research/community interests the research will be generating both funding and awareness. This funding is not predicated on a specific result being generated from the research as it is in effect 'earned' via participation in that community.
As the community develops and more users begin interacting with each other this effect is exemplified. There arises a socially moderated motivation toward the production of research and then appropriate action on that research. A decrentralised Greenpeace if you will.
So far we have managed to establish that using Steemit as a HQ for environmental awareness has many benefits. For both the environments and those who are engaged in protecting it. Even if limited to these two benefits the idea of promoting environmentalism in a more coordinated effort on Steemit seems worthwhile to me. One of the primary issues here is simply how disorganized it is. I'm a while away from having any suggestions on how to improve the infrastructure and I'm still working on how to use the current infrastructure to achieve my current objectives - so in the spirit of community that is why I am posting here.
Get involved?
I am looking for like-minded people to help be with this idea. It is in its initial stages and remains largely just a dream but I'm starting to put real work into it. I need a community - We need a community. So if you've anything to offer, advise or help or work - Please feel free to reply below.
- Criticism (Either with the overarching idea or its susceptibility to specific exploitation) It's all welcome!
- Advise
-If you would like to get involved there are many things you can do - even your support is helpful. I'm looking for everyone!. If you want to help but your unsure you know how - then comment below!