This reply is in response to the video by Heidi of Crypto Tips entitled "The Dark Truth of EOS and Voice".
Hi Heidi,
Thanks for the shout-out! I watched your video in its entirety.
I have been a pretty well-known proponent of EOS, going all the way back to the ICO. Still, I am going to reply in an unbiased way:
While I am still pretty bullish on the EOS blockchain itself, I have personally chosen not to sign up on Voice (as you mentioned) until they at least offer some level of user privacy. I agree 100% about using pseudonyms. But even if they do add pseudonyms, I would still be cautious about joining for many of the reasons you share.
Voice is its own beast. I noticed you put both "EOS and Voice" in the title. I would differentiate the two. Really, your video is about Voice. Voice is not running on EOS yet, nor is it 100% certain to be (with somewhat vague and contradicting statements made on this subject by block.one). I do think in time it will be running on EOS, although this could take a while until testing and features are finalized.
A clarification on one point: KYC Verification is only required if you wish to submit content or interact with posts by being able to comment or upvote/downvote them. ANY user may view articles and posts on the Voice platform ("read-only" mode), even if they have not verified with KYC. KYC is what block.one uses to enable token monetization and to pull it off legally.
You make a great point about a compromised 3rd party KYC process. All it takes is for the KYC company to get bought or controlled by another entity/government to be used in ways not originally intended. Imagine if a government wanted to control things a little more. They have one central KYC company to go after.
You're right that the KYC process does not make it 100% effective against bots. IDs can be sold and bought illegally (I pointed this out in my video as well). However I feel that the KYC process will likely GREATLY reduce the amount of bots and fake users by 99+% because the KYC process is an enormous amount of friction for bots to overcome, especially en-masse. Sure you might have a fake account here or there, but NOTHING like we see on Facebook or Twitter. FB and Twitter are cesspools full of fake accounts and bots. On Voice, fake users will likely be the exception instead of the norm. In that regard, I do feel it will have at least some success at keeping creators accountable for their content and upvotes/downvotes to be more or less genuine.
One important thing to keep in mind that Voice is a new model, and as such it is a big experiment. It brings many new things to the table-- some better and some worse than before.
Network effect is a legitimate hurdle for Voice to overcome, especially with the friction of KYC for users. This is where the "carrot" to join Voice will have to be bigger than the friction of KYC. This may be overcome by the Voice token. By rewarding content creators and content consumers with a token of real value, this encourages participation. We'll have to see how effective this is.
Platforms like Facebook steal the value that users create on it. Voice is supposed to hand that value back to the content creators and users. I do find it ironic about that statement in their terms and conditions about being able to advertise with our data (you pointed this out). That seems contradictory for sure, and also potentially very anti-privacy.
I also share concerns about the "free speech" aspect you mentioned. To me, it seems that Voice does not offer truly free speech. Block.one is required to follow all government rules in any jurisdiction they open Voice to. Because of this, Voice will not be a whistle-blower site, and illegal topics will be limited. Discussion will be regulated, just like verified users will be regulated by KYC. I personally do not like the fact that all users are subject to the government's whims and that a government can control what is deemed acceptable conversation.
On the plus side, Voice does offer LESS MANIPULATED speech, and that is huge. Voice offers a system where ideas are not vote-manipulated. This is not something we have on bot-plagued social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. You can't even be sure if the support for articles/posts is genuine, yet they might get pushed to the top because of bots.
I cover the pros and cons of Voice in my own video. I share some of the same concerns as you. I also try to play Devil's advocate and look at both sides.
I agree that moderation seems un-scalable. I tweeted about this as well. You bring up a really good point about algorithms being susceptible to flaws and manipulation (like the recent YouTube video flags and suspensions). All it takes is for the control of these things to get into the wrong hands and you have a bad system. This applies to the KYC 3rd party process too.
I think that perhaps Voice will come to be used by some content creators and will allow accountability for their work. It will also monetize and reward content creators (this will be the carrot that may cause them to join).
In the end, it's a massive experiment, and at least Voice is trying something new. I think their hearts are in the right place, but time will tell if that translates into a successful reality. I'll be cautiously watching from the sidelines.
Personally, I'd like to see a fully decentralized social media platform verifying BIOMETRIC user uniqueness— not KYC— and thus free of government rules/regulations & thus scalable.
Sincerely,
Colin Talks Crypto
Here is my video about Voice (pros and cons):
My tweets questioning the scalability of Voice moderation:
https://twitter.com/ColinTCrypto/status/1228386931387633665
https://twitter.com/ColinTCrypto/status/1228390199413104642
Very good 👍🏻
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit