Steemit and Decentralized Censorship: An Ongoing Debate

ericarthurblair (48) · 7 years ago

I agree completely. I personally reserve flagging for content that is clearly not useful to anyone or abusive of the platform. Flagging things because you disagree with them is inexcusable.

$0.24

ronni (51) · 7 years ago

Why do we have the downvote in the first place?

I kind of agree with you. Maybe we should not be able to downvote but only flag something for a centralized power to look into. That centralized system/people should only work out of clear predetermined rules, like for an example downvoting plagiarism.

On the other hand, when we are talking with groups of people in the real physical world, we do not find a centralized (certain people) with the veto power of ruling everything out you are saying. In the real world we actually do have a decentralized power to "downvote" (disagree) with people. Everyone can downvote in real life and it kind of works doesn't it? Wouldn't it work on Steemit as well?

Just some thoughts..
ronni
Wouldn't it be better if

$0.08

bullishmoney (63) · 7 years ago

You bring up great points so thank you for opening up the discussion! I'd like to counter slightly your point about "everyone can downvote in real life..."

I don't think this works well on Steemit because you are not given a chance to appeal the downvote should the downvoter not want to listen. Furthermore, in "real life," people's discourse don't carry financial penalties. Imagine that every time you disagreed with someone, your wages were docked 1%.

Well, that's the potential road Steemit may take if higher-reputation people want to go that path. It's pretty incredible power and you know the old adage: absolute power corrupts absolutely!

$0.04

ronni (51) · 7 years ago

Great answer! There certainly are some dilemmas to figure out.
Hopefully this is something that will be looked into before we move out of beta mode.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago

I (absent any mention of centralization) have been making this exact argument. Spam and plagiarism can be handled by other means than downvotes weighted by the wealth of the account. Groups centered on those concerns might be voluntarily able to vote in concert, for example.

I have been asking for any justification of a downvote so weighted, and have received but one, and that was basically to censor voices the voters might want to go away, rather than just not be heard by themselves.

This does not seem to dovetail with the stated purpose of Steemit well, or even at all.

$0.00

cryptogrizz (41) · 7 years ago

makes sense to me - censorship = bad news

$0.00

blakadder (37) · 7 years ago

Downvoting should not exist if all votes are not equal, its back to middle ages and feudalism with the "more power more clout" system.
If Steem is supposed to be an open market why not let it operate like one, if the "hateful" and "prurient" content is that bad there will be no financial rewards for it. Take a libertarian and/or anarchist stance in this issue since the platform itself is based on those ideals in the first place.

As a median measure you can have downvotes of equal importance but then you're still not fully solving the problem since a whale with an obedient follower group can still arbitrarily shut someone out of Steem.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago

I'd like to take that exact scenario further, but also weighting upvotes equally. This is why:

Self votes from accounts with significant SP capture the vast majority of author rewards from the pool of newly minted Steem every day. @aggroed (from whom I got that chart) said that after HF19 he expected the situation to improve dramatically, to where only 93% of rewards went to a handful of accounts, from 99% prior to the fork.

An account can generate $1000's per post by self voting, if it is imbued with sufficient SP. With that kind of financial motivation to self vote, it is very difficult to justify voting other's content. This is counterproductive to the stated purpose of Steemit, and promotes self voting for financial gain, rather than any promotion of quality content whatsoever.

That some whales do curate content created by others is a testament to their personal dedication to the Steemit ethos, and people generally. It's amazing it happens at all.

Furthermore, equal weighting votes also eliminates vote buying, also clearly not a good way to promote quality content, and generally renders moot most of the reasons to game the system financially, rather than promote content creation.

$0.00

blakadder (37) · 7 years ago

The more information I'm exposed to the more I think this platform is heavily flawed with this system and that could be its downfall before it managed to take off.
Why can you upvote your own posts and have financial gain from it? That doesnt make any sense for platform development.
The problem with equal weighted votes is that it kinda kills what Steem is supposed to be and makes it just a decentralised reddit which isn't a bad thing, to be frank.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago

Well, a decentralized Reddit with it's own currency, that pays people to post. These are the essence of Steemit, not the financial manipulations. I agree, and have been commenting like mad in order to bring this issue to light. With the explosion of cryptos, and the horror that fakebook has become, I do expect Steemit to have competitors with essentially the same features soon, and a platform with it's strengths, and without these weaknesses, such competition would threaten Steemit, imho.

The best explanation and attempt at justification for self voting, downvotes, and financially weighting votes, I have gathered is that this enabled the developers to attract investors, but providing a mechanism for greater financial reward than mere capital appreciation from the increase in Steem price.

$0.00

blakadder (37) · 7 years ago

Yes, I also viewed it as a promotional tool and nothing else since it incentivizes people to buy up Steem to increase their voting power. Maybe steem will be the bitcoin of social crypto, a proof of concept on which everyone else will learn what to do better and what not to do.
I'm still enjoying the platform for its technology and will keep using it regardless of my financial benefit from it

$0.02

rocking-dave (57) · 7 years ago

If Steem it is to be a currency first (and I think this is the idea), it's not accounts that need to be equal but units of steem. The more steem you have the more influence you get. It's not perfect, but it's better than make each account equal as it opens the blockchain to a different breed of abuse that I have come to believe is actually worse as I pointed out in my other comment here.

$0.00

rocking-dave (57) · 7 years ago

There's a question that I think is quite important. What value does the self-vote provide to the platform? We are supposed to curate content as a community and the self-vote doesn't facilitate that, it defies it. Votes should be an indication how good a post is, but voting for your own post does not add any objective information to help determine that.

I was quite surprised to see the "upvote your post" checkbox when publishing my first Steemit post and I don't see the value it is supposed to add to the system. Especially with the increased voting power, self-votes can be done away with and things will get better as voting for yourself makes no real sense anyway. In the end, this is a currency too, what other wallet allows you to move value from your wallet directly back into your wallet. It's a pointless transaction and the Steem blockchain will be more viable without it.

Of course, we need to keep in mind, that some people would then create multiple accounts so they can vote for themselves but in that case, at least the power of those votes will not be so consolidated as it can be when all your SP is in one account.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago

First, it isn't a pointless transaction, as the personal wealth that weights votes isn't the source of rewards. It is the pool of newly minted Steem created each day that is the source of rewards, and that is captured by a handful of accounts. Votes don't take anything from your wallet, but votes on your posts do add Steem to your wallet from the rewards pool.

Second, people do create multiple accounts, and some of them do use them exactly as you describe.

Third, IIRC, it is indeed possible to consolidate the voting power of all accounts you control in one account, although this obviates the purpose of multiple voting accounts.

There are no transaction fees, so transferring between accounts doesn't cost anything, and is instant.

I think the wealth weighting of votes needs to go in order for Steemit to become the World Striding Conqueror it can be. I also think that it suppresses the price of Steem, by preventing Steemit from working as well as it can, and that this costs investors in Steem capital gains - and costs them more than they gain by self voting.

$0.00

rocking-dave (57) · 7 years ago

First, it isn't a pointless transaction, as the personal wealth that weights votes isn't the source of rewards. It is the pool of newly minted Steem created each day that is the source of rewards, and that is captured by a handful of accounts. Votes don't take anything from your wallet, but votes on your posts do add Steem to your wallet from the rewards pool.

By pointless I didn't mean that it doesn't change anything, but that it doesn't really have any value in determining what content deserves to be rewarded. It's just a way to set a bare minimum reward for posting that's determined by your own voting power. I view this as pointless from the perspective of adding value to the community and the community's effective curation efforts.

Second, people do create multiple accounts, and some of them do use them exactly as you describe.

I guess the ability to self-vote kind of makes creating multiple accounts one bit less useful as you can just upvote yourself without having to go through a different account. I wonder was that part of the original reasoning for the feature's existence.

I think the wealth weighting of votes needs to go in order for Steemit to become the World Striding Conqueror it can be. I also think that it suppresses the price of Steem, by preventing Steemit from working as well as it can, and that this costs investors in Steem capital gains - and costs them more than they gain by self voting.

I'm not sure I agree here. I don't like the self-voting and the ability of the largest whales to rake in the majority of newly minted Steem, but having all accounts have an equal say makes even less sense because it enables Sybil attacks. In the end, I'd rather have people that have invested a lot in the Steem ecosystem have power, rather than people that have the means to create 1000s of accounts and I think it's a much bigger risk to Steem's stability and prices as it's much more open to abuse as @neoxian pointed out to me in a previous discussion. Even if it seems unfair (and it does seem so at least to an extent), it's better to let one's stake decide their power and influence rather than their ability to create a huge number of accounts.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago

Thanks for an informative (and informed) comment!

"it doesn't really have any value in determining what content deserves to be rewarded" I completely agree.

I am aware of Sybil attacks, but see the possibility of such attacks as extant, and wealth weighting the mechanism that IS presently conducting them. Wealth is now the vector whereby Sybillian influence is exerted on the platform, rather than numbers of accounts. Whether a vote weighted with 51% of the weight of the voting power, or accounts totalling 51% of the voting power, are used to create the attack makes no difference in the end result.

One mitigation of sybil attacks that isn't presently availed to the platform is that creating a huge number of accounts entails vast investments in both funds and time, whereas the present mechanism utilized to execute such attacks merely costs funds.

For this reason, the present system is LESS resistant to sybil attacks, which are ongoing, and imho, should be replaced by the system (or something similar) I propose.

I also note that reputation, vetting by the community in a manner that requires personal attention as a practical matter, if employed to weight votes, would dramatically harden the platform against sybil attacks under the latter weighting scheme, and that reputation is presently of little import - despite it's potential.

$0.00

rocking-dave (57) · 7 years ago

I'm not sure where the balance lies, but you do have a point. I'm not sure a different option will be better on the whole, it will be better in some ways and worse in others.

For instance, I'm not sure there is an objective way to vet the system and adding a function as moderators even if they are voted in adds yet another way for majority rule and another potential vector for influence abuse.

In the end, I think what you are proposing and talking about should be part of a broader discussion.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago

I absolutely agree, and I am composing a post to do that, as I have noted in a reply to a comment elsewhere to this post. I don't want to disrespect @dwinblood, and have some considered thoughts that are just too long to post in a reply on his post.

I must do more editing, but please do stop by tomorrow and have a glance at what I post. I'd value your comments.

Thanks!

$0.00

Show 2 more replies

bullishmoney (63) · 7 years ago

It's super early in the morning and I'm going to need to get some sleep, but damn...you are right on the money! I'm going to really look into this but absolutely, your solution makes brilliant sense.

Honestly, I think your insights and suggestions are one of the most valuable I've ever heard on the Steemit platform. Thank you! :)

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago

Oh man, get some rest. You're clearly giddy with lack of sleep =p

$0.00

bullishmoney (63) · 7 years ago

Exactly! Thank you for your comments! It's refreshing to hear honest dialogue and legitimate criticism of the Steemit network, and not just the "rah-rah" cheerleading.

$0.00

markpluto (44) · 7 years ago

I totally agree! In my opinion there needs to be some serious checks and balances in place to protect the average Steemian from these rogue vigilantes.

$0.00

gregario (55) · 7 years ago

Here I am again.

Thank you for this interaction.

Last chat we had, in a different post of yours, we were having difficulties finding just a reason for the existence of this strange thing, the flag.

I´ve been thinking perhaps there is a positive side to it. Small, not a justification at all, but still a positive thing. It´s on the currency side. Perhaps by reducing the amount of payment in posts, it reduces the amount of currency, and thus increases the value of the currency.

Is this so? Just a thought, I don´t understand this fully, but this could be another aspect of the issue.

$0.00

rocking-dave (57) · 7 years ago

I guess the flag is in place to allow the network itself to react to all sorts of possible misconducts in a decentralized way.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 7 years ago (edited)

This is an issue I feel strongly about, and I appreciate your treating it here.

Imma resteem. Thanks!

Edit: Also, the NSFW tag pretty much handles prurience. I haven't seen downvotes for that reason since I've been here, although I've seen plenty for what appeared to be merely spite, or intended to censor for personal or other reasons.

RE Edit: I just finished the video you made, and wanted to comment again. Reputation is a form of vetting, as it represents the collective respect of people delivered to the account via their direct endorsement. It is the financial weighting of downvotes that, imho, is more harmful, as you can't eat reputation, but you need money to eat.

@noganoo is the creator of some accounts that are designed to mimic @randowhale, and is constantly downvoted as a result of the ire people feel about that kind of scammy account creation. However his reputation remains higher than mine.

I remain vehemently opposed to any kind of centralization creep on Steemit, and honestly am ambivalent towards the power concentrated in the hands of witnesses and developers. This is not an indictment of them, but rather of the possibility that people less demonstrably dedicated to the censorship free platform Steemit was intended to be, assuming that power.

Steemit's main power is decentralization. I'd have to be convinced that such egregious abuse as racism, or political repression, was an existential threat to Steemit before I could agree that more centralization was necessary.

Centralization always potentiates the very concentration of power you so strongly advocate against.

$0.00

bullishmoney (63) · 7 years ago

Well, interestingly enough, I did witness a lady get downvoted for making a joke about showing her boobs now that the hard-fork is in effect. Some might agree with the flagging, but man oh man...can a girl make a joke without getting financially penalized?

The potential for Steemit to become a "decentralized police state" is a real one. To me, it's not a matter of centralization or decentralization -- if you punish speech without just cause, it's censorship, no matter how it's actually channeled.

Thanks for your comment...I really appreciate it! :)

$0.00

artbyjulia (46) · 7 years ago

I am with you on that.....!! 100%

$0.00

bullishmoney (63) · 7 years ago

Thank you!...I think it's an area that needs re-examination.

$0.00

artbyjulia (46) · 7 years ago

Definitely!!

$0.00

everittdmickey (73) · 7 years ago

flaggin is censorship
muting is not.

$0.00

cryptwarz (36) · 7 years ago (edited)

The best ideas, thoughts, and content should always win out. Flagging content because it hurts your feelings, and then getting a "central authority" involved to review it requires resources from the central authority that could be better used towards improving the platform.

Users, not a central authority, should be able to cast out village idiots. Perhaps an internal downvoting system that no one sees? Something like 5-10 downvotes removes the comment? No one likes getting a message from the central authority saying "you have been a bad boy and need to be better", but if by consensus, people agreed that your comment was not helpful to the conversation, that might send a signal to the person to be better.

Mute features are helpful, but with the layout of the platform it will not be as effective. How often are you going to see the same persons comments in the future unless they are spamming you or stalking your feed?

Idk it is a tough one. Less central authority though please. Also, hurt feelings should never be a deciding factor.

$0.00

haqnawaz (27) · 7 years ago

Nice!

$0.00

rocking-dave (57) · 7 years ago

Censorship is something that is hard to do in moderation. I'm by no means a libertarian, but I certainly don't believe in shutting people up. The fact that there are large accounts that can basically negate all the upvotes a piece of content has gathered (and the rewards related to that) is surely worrying.

Still, if people find something repulsive and vile, they should have a way to react in a negative way, not just to ignore it or upvote it. It's hard to find the right balance and all setups can be abused in one way or another. Currently, it's quite important that the whales don't abuse their power in that regard.

$0.00