'Limiting freedom' sounds and is really bad.
But social pressure is needed and must be applied constantly and started yesterday. Otherwise in a short while abusers will be the ones doing it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
'Limiting freedom' sounds and is really bad.
But social pressure is needed and must be applied constantly and started yesterday. Otherwise in a short while abusers will be the ones doing it.
Well, consider the inverse approach to the problem (any problem, really): incentivization of what you want to encourage, rather than trying to stop what you want to go away.
Instead of limiting how many times people can post, or what they can earn on a post, give curators financial incentive to curate more broadly, such as by increasing the curation rewards they get on each successive new account they curate in a given day.
While specific contractual relationships, such as might be undertaken for a bidbot vote for example, might not be sufficiently discouraged by this specific example, it would generally encourage curators to curate from a single account, and spread the joy more broadly across the platform, rather than just circle-jerking their friends with autovotes.
I completely agree with this approach, unless it produces more anomalies. Unfortunately this is a fluid system, and encouragements or limitations can have side-effects as well, which sometimes can be more important than the main desired effect.
BUTT
that's what they told the tomcat
'it's for your own good'
that's what the rapist told the woman
'relax and enjoy it'.
BUTT