I would be in favor of allowing both upvotes and tips for posts and the distinction would be that tips would be money that is not coming from the shared rewards pool. I've said in the past that I would be in favor of having multiple streams of reward pools which could potentially bridge different platforms, blockchains, ecosystems, websites, apps, wallets, cryptocurrency exchange markets like Bittrex, and whatever else there may be potentially speaking.
Of course, I'm not saying multiple reward pools would work but my argument is that a singular rewards pool might be a bit too centralized and anti-competitive and too manipulative in a free market; and I would love it if different cryptocurrencies could be used as opposed to it being limited to just Hive, Hive Power (HP), Hive Backed Dollars (HBD); and Steem merged with Tron meaning an added crypto (but I am still against Dlive Overlord Justin Sun). So, long story short, not saying any of these ideas would work but I would encourage people to explore the possibility of making things more decentralized, competitive, open-source, flexible, to increase options, possibilities, potential, independence, etc.
I'm partly resistant or against a shared rewards pool in that we all fight over it on the Hive blockchain. I prefer how miners are able to earn on the Bitcoin blockchain and I know I might be comparing apples with oranges to the extent that Hive is not Bitcoin meaning the details are different as Hive and Steemit has Witnesses as opposed to Bitcoin Miners. I am aware of the debates between proof of brains (PoB) and proof of works (PoW) and proof of concept (PoC) and proof of value (PoV) and whatever else is out there, those are the four proofs I can think of from the top of my head or I just DuckDuckGoed it, so I cheated, but I am not going to say I absolutely can state which of these 4 is the best or if it depends or not. But I am going to say that is why I prefer having the option to tip and not just to upvote. Well, I think somebody said PeakD has an option to tip a post. So, if that's the case, then that is good.
Specifically in regards to the downvoting debate, I've been flagged many times on Steemit and Hive going back to 2017 and I've written a lot about these things in the past.
We should have not just a downvote button but also a dislike button as well. I would even consider an attempt at adding a third button to that as well, a flagging button that would go beyond just downvoting.
Some have said a downvote can bring down the potential rewards of a post which is good if a post is making more than it deserves. So, the argument states downvotes helps give the post redistributional balance or goes that illogical Obama theory.
The purpose of the flagging button would not be to state that a post is making too much money (since that is the purpose of a downvote) but instead a flagging button could be there to state that the post should not be made in the first place, that it should not be there. In other words, a flag could equate to when a community owner mutes a post in a group, a tribe, a community. Well, I am not absolutely endorsing downvotes or flags and yet I do understand the value they can have in theory or perhaps in reality as well.
Perhaps, if an account is really bad for example, if the account publishes posts which are full of plagiarism, spam, repetition, and/or whatever people choose not to tolerate, etc, then not only could the posts be flagged but how about we add side panel with information or posts or text or links stating that the posts and the users are stealing the intellectual property, the articles, the videos, the art, etc, etc, whatever it may be. Well, I can't say how all of that would work specifically but again all of this would be advance features which users and developers could debate over implementing or not implementing and everything else.
I like what Logic Zombie @logiczombie is saying regarding having Flag-Trial Jurors, we could call it a Flag-Trial. I agree, only one flag per post or possibly per account or per year or per topic or per situation and more than one flag per post would be too many because, you know, as they say that would be double jeopardy in a court of law to try the same case again and again. So, instead of having dislikes, downvotes, and flags, we could have Flag Trials instead or Flag Trials and dislikes and mute options.
Perhaps some posts and some users could be voted off the rewards pool if they are flagged too much and then they would have to be voted back onto the island later on if they are found to be deserving back onto the main rewards pool. Perhaps they could still exist on other reward pools or other tokens but those tribes should be given the right to vote them off their too.
Some people can argue that is censorship and I would counter with how the posts would not be removed or stolen but that future rewards would be limited or unavailable to an account who is currently in Flag-Prison which comes following Flag-Trial. And I don't know if we want to tinker with Resource Credits (RC or mana) in order to limit how much or how often a Flag-Prisoner can post and comment. And I don't want to turn Hive into Facebook which as we may all know has Facebook Prison.
So, in conclusion, I've been in these debates for years regarding flags and everything like I said and the final thing I want to say for now is I hope we can help people who are new to Hive in context to all of this drama and also I hope flags cannot be abused to target people unfairly and I would say I was flagged unfairly many times on Steemit and Hive over the years. Which leads me to say perhaps flaggers should be put in Flag-Trial as well if they are found to be abusing the Flag button. That might be a way to keep the flaggers honest. Perhaps find a way to allow enough users and witnesses to put accounts on trial if they are found abusing the downvote/flag button because knowing you could be put in a special Flagger Trial could give you just enough fear to keep you honest kind of thing.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, USE THE GOD-DAMNED MUTE BUTTON
FLAGGING SHOULD ONLY BE FOR GENUINELY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY (LIKE IMAGES OF CHILD ABUSE)
COPYING AND PASTING STORIES AND IMAGES IS NOT ILLEGAL IN THE SLIGHTEST AND ALTHOUGH MANY PEOPLE FIND IT ANNOYING, IT IS THE VERY BASIS OF "VIRAL MEMES" (ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??).
THE "ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT OWNER" HAS AN OPTION TO PURSUE "LEGAL REMEDY" IFF AND ONLY IFF THE PERSON REPOSTING THE CONTENT IS NOT GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE "GRAY ALBUM" COMBINED HIGHLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM "THE BEATLES" AND JAY-Z - - THE "COPYRIGHT OWNER" "EMI" TRIED TO FORCE "DANGER MOUSE" TO DESTROY THE ALBUM AND BLOCK ITS RELEASE, BUT IT WAS RULED AS "FAIR USE".
FAIR FUCKING USE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album
I believe in the ability to take a copyrighted item and make money off it because copyright is an insane mind-fuck in logic, the history of copyright and related topics can be traced back to roughly the 1500s AD if not earlier and I've been following all of that. I mentioned the problem with copyright on the Internet.
But on top of that, copyright can violate hard work of individuals. The line between copyright and not is blurry.
Should Disney sue Mighty Mouse for infringing the Mickey Mouse copyright as they are both similar or how about the Mighty Ducks for using the word Mighty and should the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers then sue the Mighty Ducks and should Walker Texas Rangers then sue the Power Rangers and should the state of Texas then sue Walker Texas Rangers?
If Donald Trump copyrighted his own image and likeness, especially if he had his own cartoon, should he then sue Stephen Colbert for his cartoon show called Our Cartoon President which uses Donald's likeness?
Should Trump sue anybody who airs his face on TV or on the Internet? What if you are simply showing the scene he is in from Home Alone 2?
Copyright can discourage people who may be making original work that may appear to be infringing and may not be. I find the whole thing to be crazy. I can talk all day about copyright, there are several levels to it. If you can copyright data, then you can copyright thoughts which is something Bill Gates would likely get onto since he has a patent for human crypto.
COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP
ANTI-COPYRIGHT MUSIC
Oh yeah.
Imagine if Toyota patented the concept of the wheel and then decreed that Ford cannot use wheels for their cars. I know this is a crazy illustration but my point is copyright, patents, trademark, etc, can go overboard.
Oh, imagine if bottled water companies patented water and declared using water illegal as water is used in their products. But I already got water inside my body. So, I guess I have to die or give the money or go to prison or something.
I use these insane illustrations to highlight how ideas can be similar to other ideas. People steal ideas from each other all the time. But doing so can make things better. Also, it can take a lot of work to take a product, add something to it, and sell it. YouTube would include an exception to copyright that if it is transformative then it may be dismissed or whatever.
When I was 13, I took a firefly and cricket stuffed animal and made a comic out of it. It took me a lot of work to put together my Action Strip or Action Stripe. But imagine if those two stuffed animal figures were copyrighted or whatever. Sadly, that would be a punch in my hard work.
I find copyright to be a violation of the free market.
cookbooks, dictionaries, and clothing designs cannot be copyrighted
this does not impair "innovation" or "production" in any conceivable case
Is it true that 100% of an upvote goes to the voter, the curator, after 5 minutes on Hive? Back on Steemit, it was set at 15 or 30 minutes, something like that. I recently read on Quora.com and I think other places too that it is at 5 minutes currently. I don't know but that may be the case.
I don't think that's true.
There used to be a bonus percentage that went to the voter/curator if they voted BEFORE 5 minutes, but I believe that has been taken away, so it doesn't matter so much when you vote, you still get mostly the same percentage.
I heard somebody say as long as you vote within the first 24 hours or something like that. I heard in other words that they got rid of the reverse auction countdown of 30 minutes and replaced with this new thing. I am not sure which of the two I would prefer.
the old system was worse.
There is a difference between what should be copyrightable and what ends up being copyrighted, there can be the slippery slope effect as too many laws are added and that brings me up to a topic.
I'm thinking of writing an article about some illustrations describing copyright jurisdiction and enforcement.
Imagine aliens on Mars or other planets in other galaxies or parallel universes and dimensions. Would you try to go there and tell them they were infringing on your copyrights, patents, trademarks, intellectual property, name, reputation, etc, or would you consider any of that to be outside the jurisdiction of the copyright?
Imagine you upload a video to YouTube in Mexico and assume the laws of that nation allows for copyright infringement and/or Fair Use Exceptions alongside the Safe Harbor Act or imagine that the video was transformative in nature or whatever exceptions to copyright there might be, and assume this nation rejects alleged international laws relating to copyright if any or anything else that might be externally capable of an attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of a specific country.
Imagine I come from America and assume the United States has copyright laws and such, should I try to enforce such copyright onto your video in Mexico or might I be outside the jurisdiction of the copyright?
Now, imagine the alleged copyright infringement occurs in my house in Mexico. But now imagine that half of my house is in America. Assuming my house has dual citizenship, does the copyright have jurisdiction or not?
Now, take that same question regarding jurisdiction and all of these insane illustrations above and apply them if you might to YouTube itself. Say, for example, imagine I upload my video to YouTube Mexico and they promise the video will stay in Mexico.
If YouTube Mexico sends the video to YouTube America or Facebook America or fill in the blank, should American lawyers try to take you to court for that video or should they go after YouTube Mexico for passing the video to America?
Now, imagine that YouTube Mexico argues liability protection thanks to the Safe Harbor Act and who knows what else, then it is possible the lawyers would be angry and would want to punish somebody. So, they may try to go after the user.
The next question might be, does the liability protection apply also to the users of YouTube or does it only extent to the content therein but not the external parties involved in the uploading of the videos? And if that is true, then could operating systems of computers be targeted as they helped the user upload the video? Could you blame the cameras, phones, video editors, other programs, other machines, devices, computers, routers, modems, cords, cables, wires, etc, or can blame only be placed on the uploader? And what if the video is stolen and uploaded by another person, is copyright infringement blamed on the creators of the videos or on the uploaders or on the owners of the YouTube accounts therein?
That leads me to a final point for this post and that is this main question being, what is YouTube? Like I've said before, YouTube is a combination of many servers and other things which resides in different countries of different jurisdictions meaning YouTube is like a house which resides in many different countries. YouTube may have given users in the past the feeling of liability protection which may not be legally true some may argue but YouTube appeared some would argue to have given their potential customers for years that perception regardless of the reality of the issues regarding copyright, laws, jurisdiction, the procedures and steps in attempts to enforce copyright and punishment of copyright infringement therein.
It appears that Walt Disney used copyright to steal art from his partner nearly a century ago. Bill Gates is accused of stealing things which ended up being part of Microsoft Windows which is then given copyrights and such. Facebook is accused of stealing and selling user data which probably should have been copyrighted or what have you. Facebook is probably copyrighted as a whole and yet they are hiding behind the label of copyright protection and yet also liability protection which might be an aspect of a paradox between copyright and the liability protection as a publisher, platform, and for-profit intellectual property robber. And on top of that, when YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc, remove videos, etc, they are in fact destroying intellectual property, etc.
YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE THIS,
The crazy thing is this video ends with a sponsor being an actual drone delivering food which might as well be small robots inside our brains. Yeah, love this hypothetical video that is actually something they will try to do among other things as well. My one counter is the soul can counter pacifism because it can come from higher dimensions while the nano mites are limited simply to the three main dimensions meaning humans have access to higher intelligence even in the face of alleged super artificial intelligence but of course Matrix AI has the potential of doing a lot of damage upon over 99% of most humans, there are a few exceptions, a few Neo people out there who might try to save us from such a future and yet I would hope we can try to stop things before they ever got that bad and yet things are pretty bad already right now at the same time.