As far as I understood it the user had been warned in the past. What would the next step be in your opinion as to not alienate them?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
As far as I understood it the user had been warned in the past. What would the next step be in your opinion as to not alienate them?
🤷♂ Leave them alone? I admit, I've seen plenty of people vehemently complain about Hivewatchers and downvotes when they've been caught for repeated plagiarism, identity theft etc. Those folks can go pound sand. This conversation is entirely around whether the idea of "no reposts" is good and valid. If enough people are complaining about it, then it may mean that it's not as much of a consensus as thought. In my post and opinions I'm making it pretty clear that I can foresee myself reposting content in the future, and if I get warnings from Hivewatchers I will ignore them and face whatever consequences.
Honestly, in a future with even more front end options, how do you see this playing out? If there are three art-centric front ends all powered by HIVE, displaying content only posted through their own interfaces, and I'd like to participate on each of them, the rule is going to be that you have to choose one to monetize and decline rewards on all others? It just doesn't make sense. While HIVE is small it's been okay to think of it as the community, but as we've grown and grow more it really needs to be thought of as an infrastructure... not a community. The success of HIVE will come when people are using sites and apps powered by HIVE without even knowing it... and at that point does it make any sense if an account called Hivewatchers drops into the comment section on someone's Liketu account and tells them that they're not using it right?
The data is already on the blockchain, new dapps could show your history and implement your past posts, doesn't mean you will need to repost them again or that doing so is okay just because you're using a new dapp, imo. The difference could be if they are rewarding you with their own token, then just accept that but not hive rewards and repost at your heart's content.
Think of it this way, a new dapp could easily also do something similar to cross-posts on peakd; "hey everyone this comment we placed here under your old post will create a new post on our dapp and show that post but the difference is that everyone can re-vote it now, whether or not the same people we don't care". This is the same amount of effort that reposting is. If you want to repost for the attention/visibility/growth of your following/new autovotes, etc, then do it, just don't accept curation as post rewards for something you've already been rewarded for (doesn't matter if curators didn't find it at the time cause you were new or whatever, as I said in a post somewhere earlier in a comment the post itself is proof you've put effort into finding curation, followers, etc). A better comparison would be with some youtube channels that take weeks to generate new content, if Kurzgesagt suddenly reposted a video from 3 years ago without saying anything I'm sure people would be like wtf? Even tho it's just adrevenue money going to it that doesn't affect any viewers or youtube shareholders - here it does, it's inflation that could go to others who are putting in the effort to post new content that hasn't been posted yet and that's what the Hive consensus wants/is in agreement of, originality and fresh stuff. Either way not really sure how else I can explain this but I'm pretty sure the majority of stakeholders would be against this no matter through what dapp if it's about Hive curation rewards.
Happy new year.
Alienate? How and by whose authority?
I see talk about consensus, but absolutely see none of that, when self-appointed big stake holders "speak" for the community.
Consensus on Hive is in the order of when we vote changes to code / blockchain. The community truly gets to say.
I too have also in the past fallen afoul of big stake holders moralizing. @gric may earn more for his posts, but he is by no means raping the rewards pool. There are others on this platform that earn far more than what he does.
This downvoting of his content punishes not only him but also those that chose to vote for his content. It is their voting power and they are free to give it where they wish.
And before you say anything about automatic votes, bots or whatever, that is not the case here.
If big stake holders think that other content is more deserving, then by all means use that voting power to reward content they they think deserves it rather than burning the votes of smaller stake holders with down votes.
I vote for @gric's content because I like it. So what if there is a bit of recycling of content, he publishes way more original content on this platform. Hive needs content creators like him. But if this petty minded authoritarianism persists on Hive, it is going to die a slow death as original content creators give up and leave.
We came here for a censorship free network, and yet people seem to want to enforce that very thing here.
So what if some don't agree with it and downvote it.
You've (intentionally?) left out some import points I made, large stake holders can wipe out small. Having more stake does not make one more moral or righteous but more capable of abuse.
Some how I get the feeling that if you were on the receiving end, your attitude would be somewhat different.