Its an antisocial behavior on a social network. That's the a definition of, design flaw.
My point is that downvoting is absolutely necessary, what if a rich pedophile started to upvote all his kiddie porn content to the trending page?
Im not sure about your analogy but if you think the foundation is what is flawed on steemit you are wrong, the blockchain works as it should, the social/emotional stuff should be dealt with a the interface level.
I didn't say that downvoting was incorrect I said it suffers from a design flaw. Your example proves my point. The entire community could come along and flag the dude and nothing would happen. It would require someone else who is rich enough to counter that...
This is the definition of a design flaw.
Stake based weighting does not work and the current war is proving that to be true. Voting needs to be isolated and seperate from censorship. Censorship should reflect the values of the Democratic majority not the economic majority.
Let's look at your example. Who defines minor or explicit content? In some countries it is illegal and even pornographic for a female of any age to be in a bikini or even a 1 piece swimsuit. Yet in other countries it is illegal for women to wear a so called burkini which covers too much, because it's a sign she is part of a radicalized sect.
This needs a rethink because at the moment, all control is in the hands of the economic majority and the Democratic majority has very nearly no say in the matter. Thus the values of the system already reflect only the values of the rich. It is only by luck that those who are in the whale category happen to have a set of values that align with what's left of our active user base.
What happens when some advertising company buys a large stake and begins to spam the site with advertisements and upvotes their own ads as an additional revenue stream? They suddenly begin to claim a disproportionate share of the rewards pool. What happens when other advertisers see this, begin to run their own ads and use their weight to censor the content of competitors.
It's a complex problem, there are no simple solutions but this is what I mean by a design flaw. Integral or not, this has issues. Significant issues that need significant thought applied. In the meantime, the only currency this site really has is the good will of the community and the current experiment is burning through that most limited of resources.
I admit it has had a positive effect on the reward pool. I admit it may have directly driven the current rise in price.
It's still flawed. Flagging should be democratic and it should have as much impact on the person giving as the person receiving.
We can stop bot votes by ditching curation rewards. Then the only bot votes left and really the only reason to vote would be solidarity. Which is really the only reason you should vote in the first place. Leave the stealing to the government , upvote what and who you like.