ALGORAND solves this by allowing people to "opt out" or "delegate" their jury option.
There is also a small financial incentive for participation.
And there is also an additional small financial incentive for voting with the majority (if there is a 60% majority).
The person who chooses to "flag" might even add a "bounty" to incentivize juror attention.
Your scathing critique is appreciated.
Does that not then whittle it down to a small group making all the decisions?
And how does it eliminate disputes? You're offered a case by case basis with no background story. So if I come across one of these posts where someone is being downvoted. They're blasting the entire community. Flying off the handle about not being able to earn or the censorship argument that never makes sense. So, 1000 people come along. They agree there's no reason to pay that individual. Does that individual then magically convert themselves into someone accepting of this fate? Wouldn't they just turn around and say this police force is out to get them and we're right back where we left off having posts like these and people frantically trying to figure out what to do instead of just looking at the isolated incidents and attempting to resolve them?
What about art fraud? I know how to detect certain forms of art fraud. I have to count on 999 others to make the right decision? Yet it's just a random group and majority wouldn't know the first thing about what to look for? So either, by dumb luck, this art fraudster can continue on earning, or not. Plagiarism. Suddenly 1000 people are going to go on their own, dig, find proof, make the right call? Can you see how inefficient that is?
A. Rule 404(b) -- Crimes and other isolated acts of bad behavior (not done frequently
enough to be a pattern)
negates the presumption of innocence. Empirical studies show that jurors are willing to give an
accused the benefit of the presumption of innocence only if this is the accused's first offense.
Once he has proved himself to be "a criminal," the jury assumes he is guilty. However, proving
that the defendant has criminal tendencies would seem to be prohibited as character evidence. **
You're free to use the "MUTE" button or subscribe to a "MUTE" list of your choosing.
The "point" here is to reduce abusive flags and create a system where everyone is treated the same, regardless of how many friends they have and how much stake they're sitting on.
So I have to know to MUTE someone in advance, before I come across that post? How do I do that?
I can see you're trying to make a point. I can see the point. I'm not critical of the system you're presenting because I don't understand where you're coming from. I'm critical because it doesn't make sense and won't work.
Subscribe to one of the many existing "MUTE" lists.
Imagine people had an option to create a "friends only" HIVE blog.
You know.
Like facebook and discord do.
Wouldn't that make "everyone" happy?
You can get in a couple of devastating downvotes to express your difference of opinion, and in response, your victim switches to "friends only" and that way you don't have to see them anymore (since you seem to be allergic to the "MUTE" function).
It's likely to be a much larger group than currently decides what's "worthy" of the "trending page".
I know there are a lot of people on HIVE from very poor countries who would likely be more than happy to review posts for the jury rewards.
I've always been particularly interested in finding heavily downvoted posts and reviewing cases might even be more interesting than reading the "trending page".
I'm pretty sure people are 100% free to rant about whatever the hell they wish.
Do you downvote people for posting Giphy gifs?
Giphy does not own the copyrights to any of the images it hosts.
“Instagram‘s privacy policy states that “[b]y using our Service you understand and agree that we are providing a platform for you to post content, including photos, comments and other materials (“User Content”), to the Service and to share User Content publicly. This means that other Users may search for, see, USE, or SHARE any of your User Content that you make publicly available through the Service.” (Privacy Policy, Instagram.com, Instagram Help Center (last visited Mar. 5, 2015)) The privacy policy further states, “[a]ny information or content that you voluntarily disclose for posting to the Service, such as User Content, becomes available to the public, as controlled by any applicable privacy settings that you set. . . . Once you have shared User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others.” (Id.)” **
By this measure it seems that anyone can repost what they find on instagram without attribution as much as they please.
(IFF) the "community" doesn't think it's a "crime" (THEN) it's not a "crime"
And if it is an actual literal crime, then call the actual literal police or something.