Hi @dan,
Starting from a philosophical standpoint and moving to more practical issues, I would approach this argument with the observation that there are two versions of the world in which we live.
There is the idealised world in which we would like to live. This is a world in which radical transparency and the associated ideas raised in your post (and the previous one that you wrote a little over two weeks ago) are effective and humans are able to harmoniously co-exist and self-police, without the need for external influence.
There is also the world in which we do live, which is populated by real people, with selfish motivations. This is the world that surrounds us in real life, and Steemit is but a microcosm of this world.
While it is essential to have aspirational goals to guide the development of our community, it is also necessary to face the fact that these goals can only ever be aspirational. In the day to day world that we all must face, radical adherence to aspirational concepts leads to disappointment and failure.
Asymmetry will exist in any community structure you wish to nominate. If you live in a community governed by violence, then the strong hold an advantage over the weak. If you live in a community where intelligence is valued, then the smart hold an asymmetric advantage over the less intelligent. There has never been, nor will there ever be, complete equality between all people. Flowing from this concept, there will also never be perfect governance, either communal or otherwise. Human nature is such that every set of rules that could be imagined will be gamed, so that those who hold the advantage in the system you have designed, use this advantage to further the interest of themselves, their family and their associates. All human beings are flawed, no matter how noble their intentions. The reason why the likes of Ghandi and Nelson Mandela are so well known is precisely because individuals with this level of moral selflessness are so rare. There are a handful per generation. The rest of us must deal with the reality that self interest is at the heart of the human condition. No set of governance rules will ever perfectly solve this problem. The same goes for lines of code. No algorithm will ever eliminate the ability of those smart enough to game the system. Steemit is broken because humans are inherently conflicted. This is the real world that I reference at the start of my post. Some may call this cynical, but I would fall back on several million years of human evolution as my proof. This is not to say that we shouldn’t aspire to improve the system, as all people should aspire to live in a world that more closely resembles the first (ideal) world than the second. These goals can only ever be aspirational however. We will always live in a world where the weak take advantage of the strong. The only differentiator is the definition of strength in the system that you choose to govern yourself with. If the rules of the game are changed, then someone will figure our how to game to new rules to their advantage. It is perpetual cycle.
Having read this and your previous post, there is a strong theme of anti-establishmentarianism that comes through. This is unsurprising as this is one of the foundations on which the concept of blockchain technology is built. As such it is unsurprising that this theme comes through so strongly in the views of many of the block chain community’s thought leaders. An issue that I think this community (and I refer to the blockchain community more broadly) has yet to grapple with is the fact (at least I believe it to be fact) that at some point there must be some form of centralised authority for the system to function effectively. The “Leviathan” as Thomas Hobbes coined it in the 1600’s. Despite the many failings of most forms of centralised government, the rise of the leviathan over the past several hundred years has, more than any other factor, led to the dramatic increases in health, wealth and prosperity of billions of people. Centralised democratic governments reduce the incidents of warfare and state sponsored violence, not increase them. I refer you to Steven Pinker’s excellent book “The Better Angles of our Nature” for a comprehensive discussion of this point. We currently live in the most peaceful time in the history of human evolution, and this “Outbreak of Peace” can be shown to directly correlate with the outbreak of democracy that followed the end of World War Two.
Are modern democracies perfect? Far from it. But they represent the best solution yet developed to the problem of governing a mob of self-interested individuals. The biggest failing of modern democratic government is that it has become so inward looking and conflicted that it has lost the faith of an entire generation of young people. The fact that the system is flawed however, does not mean that the solution lies in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
More practically, I admit to being very new here, but I have been a student of human nature for far longer than my brief membership of this platform, and as stated above, I believe the flaws evident in the Steemit community are simply a microcosm of the flaws present in wider society.
While pitched as a truly decentralised, peer to peer platform, Steemit is in actuality an oligopoly (or perhaps kleptocracy would be a better term in light of the views you have expressed above). As in all other human ecosystems, the strong take advantage of the weak. In this case the strong are those whales who game the system, and the weak are the rest of us. There is much criticism of upvoting bots and other means by which minnows attempt to climb the ladder. This is somewhat hypocritical however, as for those of us at the bottom, the climb to the top is getting longer and longer. Steemit of January 2018 is not the Steemit of June 2017 and certainly not the Steemit of June 2016. As membership grows and the number of daily posts grow with it, the ability of a new member to get noticed decreases proportionally. There are any number of comments from more established users that while the journey is long and hard, the key to success is to persevere and produce good quality posts that generate genuine engagement. This undoubtedly remains true, but a journey that may have taken 3-6 months when Steemit had 50,000 users, could easily take 12-24 months now that the community has grown. For those who are already established to criticise those of us just starting our journey, for using any meagre advantage that is available to us smacks of hypocrisy. This is especially so when in the oligarchic community in which we try to survive, it only takes one whale to take a dislike to you and you can be down voted out of existence.
In reality however, if upvoting bots (and self-upvoting posts) are anathema to the vision of the Steemit community then ban them. If they are allowed to exist then they are, by de facto, legitimate. Leaving ethical decisions such as when it is, and isn’t appropriate to use these tools in the hands of inherently conflicted and self interested individuals is a recipe for failure. Once again we return to the difference between our ideal world and our real world. Decisions such as this require the presence of a centralised authority however, a leviathan, and from what I can glean from the above commentary, the vast majority of Steemians appear to not favour the establishment of such a body.
In closing, one of the biggest flaws in the Steemit system, from my observation, is the system of downvoting. I have never downvoted, and doubt that I ever will. While this function appears to have been conceived to allow the democratic curation of content, in reality, it amounts to little more than a means of censorship, especially in a system where so few, exert so much influence. It is my firm belief that I am but one person, and I hold an opinion. That opinion is worth no more, or no less than that of any other Steemian. You may not agree with my opinion, but that does not make it wrong. Nor does the fact that I hold it, make it right. It is what it is. One opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, then the way to change it, is to engage with me and convince me through strength of argument. The current system however, allows my opinion to be obliterated simply because it doesn’t agree with your own. Even if you were to choose engagement over obliteration we return to one of the central points of my discussion. If you are more intelligent than me, or better educated, then you have a better than average chance of changing my opinion, as you are likely to be more persuasive. Your influence is asymmetric, and we return to the point that all systems are flawed. It just depends on your perspective as to where the flaws lie.
So I see one of two paths forward from here. The system (Steemit) remains in its current form and exists in an anarchic state, where the powerful exert outsized influence and the rest of us do the best we can, hoping we can one day reach a point we are the powerful. Or the system changes to allow a group of individuals (witnesses were suggested above) to make decisions on behalf of the community and govern it for the benefit of all members. Neither solution will be perfect.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think there can be a microcosm based on such values in a chosen community like joining a club, you have to play by the rules and if you don't you're out. There seem to be no rules here so we are suffering at the hands of human nature. That is why I post mostly about Buddhism, meditation and other fun stuff, but The Noble Eightfold Path and it's corresponding teaching and practices, because of these human tendencies. The abuse here hurts my heart but also bonds me more to my ethical path wherein my true peace and power lies. I have little power on Steemit and I don't need to have any.
Modern democracy is a deception. An illusion used to justify rule by deep state.