RE: My (SWOT) Analysis of STEEM's Strengths & Weaknesses in mid 2017 Make Interesting Reading in 2020!

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

My (SWOT) Analysis of STEEM's Strengths & Weaknesses in mid 2017 Make Interesting Reading in 2020!

in steem •  5 years ago 

It's not really a false premise, in that downvoting IS an inherent part of the blockchain that is intended to allow stakeholders to remove payouts for their own reasons. If they make bad decisions then they have to face the consequences, which might be a loss of community support, damage to their investment and the community or even being forked out totally (which shall henceforth be known as a justin fork ;) )
I personally am only likely to use downvoting for bot use or really malicious activity - I rarely use them now.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

...downvoting IS an inherent part of the blockchain...

This statement is provably false.

Downvoting CAN be removed from the code (THEREFORE) it is NOT "inherent".

And even the argument that downvoting is "necessary" is not and should not be treated as some sort of "foregone conclusion".

The blockchain itself could screen all content for 85% similar posts and comments and block them all.

If your concern is about people posting controversial (or illegal) images, the blockchain itself could screen out all image files, and the front-ends could simply display images from 3rd party (free image hosting) links.

If your concern is about people posting hateful messages and or "dangerous" lies and "conspiracy theories", then set the blockchain to automatically screen-out all logical fallacies and mean words and expletives.

(IFF) you require vigilantes to police your platform (THEN) you need to FIX the platform "in CODE".

Can you imagine a game, (like an MMORPG) where, instead of code fixes and updates to the rules and mechanics of the game, the devs just gave every player the ability to silence and or ban other players for "breaking the rules"?

Who would want to play a game like that?

by 'inherent', i meant 'hardwired' and 'by design' - sure it can be removed - but i was speaking in the context of 'guidelines' for how it is intended to be used, rather than whether it should be removed altogether or not.

I agree that downvoting could be removed, but having thought about this quite a lot over the years and listened to all sides, I think that it serves a valid purpose. It sure could be removed though and I am not against experimenting with that.

If your concern is about people posting controversial (or illegal) images, the blockchain itself could screen out all image files, and the front-ends could simply display images from 3rd party (free image hosting) links.

As long as images are visible, there is a risk factor - regardless of where they are hosted.

The main reason for downvoting, besides anti-spam, is that people can manually decide that posts do not demonstrate 'proof of brain' and can prevent vote exploitation. There is a gap in perception relating to the role of proof of brain, which I covered in a recent post. I agree that some aspects of the anti spam processing could be automated and probably should be.

As long as images are visible, there is a risk factor - regardless of where they are hosted.

But no legal liability.

For example, Microsoft's search engine "Bing" displays (but does not host) illegal images (I listened to a news report about this recently) and Microsoft is NOT legally liable for displaying those illegal images.

Different jurisdictions treat the situation differently and there is a move currently to change the law in the US to make social network publishers liable for everything. In any case, the issue for me is as much about PR as it is for liability. It takes very little for negative PR to become extreme. It would only take, say, Facebook to post a few illegal porn pics to the blockchain, linked from another site and to then spread negative news stories on how Steem/hive is a place for abusers and that would be the narrative that millions would hold on to. It happened to minds.com (accused of being right wing extremists).

Why are there no big news stories about how Microsoft is the world's leading distributor of illegal images?

I wasn't aware that they were - I'd think that google has more image traffic.. But I did do my best to point out that Bill Gates' personal engineer was arrested at Gates' mansion for possession of 6000+ images of child abuse.

Amazingly the Google actually automatically screens-out all known illegal images using a database of "image dna" provided by... MICROSOFT.

WTF.

Bill Gates' personal engineer was arrested at Gates' mansion for possession of 6000+ images of child abuse.

What year was that?

How is that not considered "headline news"?

2013, the same year that Gates was on Jeffrey Epstein's planes. I presume it's not headline news because the mainstream and gov are run by a criminal gang that protects him.. That and I am mostly denied in the mainstream and it was me that tried to break the story.