I disagreed with @dan on precisely this point. Transparency does encourage a trend toward conformity. This is problematic if you are trying to build a global platform where it's all different cultures, different history, different views, I just don't see how you can force everyone into a small digital village scenario because not everyone comes from small town culture.
What I do suggest is to have multiple communities. Let everyone find their own place. On the topic of privacy, I don't think absolute secrecy is necessary. There are levels and it is a spectrum. I think Steemit is too far on the transparent side of the spectrum so I consider it "dangerously transparent". I do think you can find a balance though where you can make a platform just transparent enough to keep everyone safe but not so transparent that it encourages persecution, possible genocide, etc.
In other words, I fall on the side of human rights. Transparency which leads to abuse in my opinion is the dangerous kind. Just as secrecy which leads to abuse is the dangerous kind. The example being, do I need to know what is in your wallet to know which of us is richer? No, I actually do not.
I never need to know exactly how much you have to know you have more than me. This is Yao's millionaires problem and it was solved already. So you can use mathematics to determine who between two parties has the bigger number. Because of that you can maintain the necessary privacy of both parties while also having enough practical transparency.
Just as people don't put their money into a bank in hopes that the banks will sell their spending habits to anyone who is willing to pay, it is also the case that people probably will not want to put their money into the Steem bank or crypto bank which is wide open.
"On the topic of privacy, I don't think absolute secrecy is necessary. There are levels and it is a spectrum. I think Steemit is too far on the transparent side of the spectrum so I consider it "dangerously transparent". I do think you can find a balance though where you can make a platform just transparent enough to keep everyone safe but not so transparent that it encourages persecution, possible genocide, etc."...
This is something which has been bothering me since I shortly after I got onto the platform last year. I totally agree. The number of times I have wished I could click my heels and make one (or more) people on the platform just "go away" has been significant. Then you look at the new revelations about DiscraceBook, and so many "icky" aspects of that platform (ex. being able to add "friends"/people to groups without their permission, etc.) and I think we all have a BASELINE sense of your "ideal" sweet spot on the transparency/privacy continuum. So, another great point. ...
"Transparency does encourage a trend toward conformity. This is problematic if you are trying to build a global platform where it's all different cultures, different history, different views, I just don't see how you can force everyone into a small digital village scenario because not everyone comes from small town culture. What I do suggest is to have multiple communities. Let everyone find their own place."
Yup! This is one of the PRIMARY premises of our entire global community of @mixedmentalarts (sorry for the shameless plug, but it IS relevant, and I AM trying to build momentum of the recent migration of this community onto Steemit ;-> Hunter Maats, one of the founders/cohosts (and a buddy) gives the anecdote that the global community is like a family holiday get-together with all of those relatives who disagree with each other.
I always enjoy your analysis (and generally agree with you on ~ 85% of your thoughts. We think similarly on many issues...