RE: I filmed this video of @ned @pkattera and @sneak talking about the SMTs and the future of Steemit

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

I filmed this video of @ned @pkattera and @sneak talking about the SMTs and the future of Steemit

in steemit •  7 years ago 

I am earnest in my efforts, if you want to call that being a 'troll', well that's your prerogative. Also, I do not underestimate the community at all, and I have had flags removed.

Even if they didn't touch the issue of how flagging effects rewards, the simple elimination of post-hiding, and text-dithering, that would go a long way towards signaling that Steemit is in favor of freedom of expression.

In the long run, it's the right thing to do and would be very beneficial to the health of the platform overall.

Imagine if you were searching your feed and you saw a flagged post, but instead of being dithered out there was simply a flag icon next to the time that it was posted.

That would be more productive, people could click the story, read it immediately without jumping through hoops and then decide whether or not they want to counter the reward aspect of the flagging.

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:  
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Earnesty starts by not inventing terms like "soft-censorship" to link a minor issue to a serious one.
Now you even admit that the community weighed against the "all powerful" whales soft-childporning you...

Flags are not just for rewards. Hiding posts is a necessity, and the implemented solution works for the required cases (and there's the real child porn now). It has its kinks and sometimes something else gets under the wheel, but as you and I both agree in most cases the community reacts - which is exactly how it is designed.

I just wish it worked as well with the trending posts too - if anything, we need more flags! ;-)

You support flagging, but the issue with flagging is how centralized it's become. A few people control most of the steem power, which means they choose what goes. The only reason you stick up for this is because you have a lot of steem power, and it helps you when others support and engage with the platform, because you get a large cut of the reward pool (and their hard work). This

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Just one more thing. No idea if it clicks for you, but there's a good reason whales are whales. Having a huge stake is a big commitment. The price for a steem has been between 7 cents and 8$ the last months. Whales held on to them during all this time.
And imagine all the whales dumping their stake, driving the price down near 0 and everyone can stock up as they wish. In the same moment, there'd be new whales again.

Broader distribution is happening over time. But there will always be whales and minnows. And it will become harder and harder for the minnows to be heard as competition grows. Early adopters had a head start, yes. We took a huge risk though. When we started working with this platform we didn't know if our rewards would ever be worth something. And we keep working since. Maybe if you'd kept being productive instead of letting frustration take over and trying to change a system you don't fully understand yet you'd be further than rep42 too.

Damn. One more thing I said. But there's just so much you didn't think about in your position, still you're so convinved you're going the right path. I think the only question left for me is:
If you don't like a game, why do you play it? Don't you have things you believe in to spend your time with?

You suffer from this thing called survivors bias. You think because you invested a lot you should get a lot. I think you fail to understand the potential decentralized media has, simply viewing this as an attempt to make money. The argument I make (which you are incapable of rebutting, despite your steem power) is that everyone should have a right to have their ideas heard. This is good for a number of reasons.

  1. Everyone can speak, and discuss ideas leading to a more reasoned and balanced society. This helps prevent extremists from gaining traction (as people realise their views are not based on correct principles) and people are not afraid to voice their ideas (they have the anonymity of the internet).
  2. People can campaign and protest about problems, which leads to change.

However you suggest that this is bad. The system you support limits the exposure of those with little money, and means that those with a lot of money can flag posts they don't like to make them less visible and upvote the posts they do like to make them more visible. The platform does this in a few ways:

  1. They hide low value posts.
  2. The trending page (what users see most) is owned by people who pay lots of money to bot-owners and get visibility through that.

To your point that I should "shut up and go away" - go find someone who cares about you, your sad little life and your "I have money so I'm so great" chant. Because honestly you're a stuck-up little prick, who thinks they have a fundamental, god-given right to all the money they make.

Loading...
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I tried to explain my reasoning to you here and in our main discussion. Whatever you might want to interpret in addition is up to you.
You're here since a few months and want to explain to me "how it has become"without a good understanding why things are designed that way ... this is a waste of time.

Your analogy for soft-censorship was inappropriate, and vile.
It seems to me, that you do not take this matter seriously.