Referring to your post from a year ago: https://peakd.com/opinion/@nonameslefttouse/not-everything-needs-to-be-a-spectacle-turning-a-negative-into-a-positive
I think we are essentially on the same page here. You said:
Things become incredibly confusing when we start talking about, "Reward disagreement."
Since there's no official definition or guidelines in place to eliminate disputes, this is the part of the post where I lightheartedly throw up my hands and wonder: Why did I even write this?
I disagree with rewards when I see spam and reward farms. I disagree with rewards when I see a plagiarist or word spinner attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. I disagree with rewards when an art fraud attempts to dupe people into thinking they're talented. I disagree with the use of paid votes. I disagree with excessive self voting with intent to dump. Probably a few more things but I don't feel like complaining today.
All of which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Here's where I think we differ, even if only in degree:
I'm personally impressed with the fact downvotes, in majority of cases, are not being abused. Downvote abuse was one of the biggest concerns coming out of the minds of the harshest critics when the free downvotes were being introduced.
Although it is impressive that downvote abuse is not more common, that exactly reinforces my point. You were surprised that downvote abuse wasn't more prevalent. This actually doesn't surprise me all that much, because the platform is, at present, comprised by-and-large of users who value decentralization and 'freedom'.
@themarkymark has pointed out the fact that it remains relatively rare. My perspective is that it represents a huge 'loophole' that will be exploited to increasing degrees as the platform's user base expands. Some might say, "Well, let's deal with that problem when it becomes bigger." Although I respect that position, I see this as a work involving critical infrastructure -- fixing something that, if left unfixed, could lead to a massive collapse in the future, like the condo in Miami that collapsed recently, due to an underlying infrastructure defect.
The potential for abuse is evident (as seen by your surprise in its relative absence) and it's only a matter of time before some powerful person or powerful group begins to test the limits of how much abuse they can get away with. If we have zero alternatives and have done zero due diligence in experimenting with other approaches, then we will be caught flat-footed and may, in the process, lose the potential for future growth because we weren't prepared.
The reason I see this as such a big deal is because the exploitation of this loophole goes completely against the concept of decentralization. The potential backlash could be devastating -- "Decentralized blockchain FAILS in its core mission. Allows powerful accounts to financially crush the 'little guys' with impunity!"
Tribes are, in large part, insulated from this 'loophole' because of the power of the tribe-level mute function. However, I don't see Layer 1 as having an effective way to combat downvote abuse, if and when it becomes a large-scale problem -- especially if it becomes a large-scale problem rapidly, over the course of days or even weeks.
However, if Layer 2 alternatives have already been demonstrated and tested, then Layer 1 will be much better prepared for that eventuality (which I see as a matter of 'when', not 'if').
One relatively simple solution that I am currently 'thinking out loud' about, is simply reducing the number of downvotes an individual account can cast. If downvotes remain free but become relatively 'scarce' (e.g. I can cast 1 downvote for every 50 upvotes), then the potential remains for those downvotes to be used if and when needed, but individuals will be much more judicious in their use. The key to that concept partly lies in figuring out the correct ratio, and then being able to modify that ratio as needs change (i.e. being able to ramp up in the event of a dramatic increase in plagiarized content). Also, improving the ability to mobilize lots of 'little downvotes' when needed.
This came before the first article I sent you. I was not impressed that day. There's a good reason why in the months after, a certain kind of content took over here and art practically vanished (but never fully went away and is climbing back). Can't say I was pissed about downvotes; more like completely blown away by how some can act so irresponsibly, and most likely aren't even aware of the impact.
I've been through the process myself. Stakeholder was selectively downvoting arts/entertainment, then upvoting their preferred material; nullifying the argument "returning rewards from the over-rewarded back to the pool" since their preferred material, after receiving the upvotes, was destined to receive much higher rewards than what had been downvoted. Something like: see $120, add $40. See $80, deduct $40. The end result was an illusion of what's currently popular or 'trending' and a steady stream of pissed off people. There was even one special case where an art post had well over 20 reblogs (sure sign the community loved it); downvoted. Meanwhile what was being upvoted showed no clear signs of consumption, consistently.
This sent ripples throughout the entire art scene here. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for many. Several left quietly. Not one artist at the time wasn't aware of what was going on. Photographers as well. General arts and entertainment. Everyone knew. Even if I had kept quiet, everyone knew, even on the outside in some circles. And since there was no sense of belonging, when the NFT thing exploded, those artists were not interested in bringing any of the money or attention here. They had no reason to even though we did have NFT solutions in place, and much cheaper to use. Several that I've known from here over the years did really well, on other platforms, and still are. In many ways, the crypto art scene was born on this chain. But slowly, steadily, gradually; each artist would leave. I might be the only one left from the early days.
Artists always knew crypto and art would gel. So that one move with irrational excessive downvotes (but wasn't the first time and it's currently happening now under a new name), combined with a history of placing internal platform politics posts, really expensive development updates, favoring crypto content, alternative news going without views and other various forms of content not many were interested in consuming above arts and entertainment plus the people here (backbone of this community); perfect storm. I'd estimate this community lost out on potentially millions, hundreds of millions, even billions for turning a blind eye to arts and entertainment over the years. Failed to embrace it fully. Couldn't see the value in it. Even when I arrived back after a long break, they were busy calling NFT a scam (creating and unwelcoming environment) and promoting DEFI, which would only appeal to a tiny fraction of society. Following trends is the easiest way to stay behind. I'd say the community at times can be narrowminded when it comes to this industry (arts/entertainment/information). There's a little more at play here than just downvotes leaving an impact. Irresponsible upvotes as well.
For years I've been offering perspective from a business standpoint, as a writer/artist/entertainer. I assumed since they don't get art, they'll understand money. No dice. Some folks hear me, but I say it a year or two too early, then they kind of see what I mean, after, when the opportunity passes by.
The downvotes in the state they're in; yeah I agree. There's room for improvement. I'm not sure even losing out on so much attention and money will be enough to make some folks use that button responsibly. In theory, since they have skin in the game, you'd think they would. Some folks just can't seem to think outside of their bubbles though. Many wouldn't be able to see how it all ties together. Experimenting on the base layer is getting really old though.
Personally, I could do a lot with this place, the technology, the underlying business model most don't notice, and some business sense. Just need to work on developing the neglected consumer class. Attracting many here only to consume rather than create, having them spend their money, with the chance of earning as they consume; it's a tough sell if you told them, "Oh. By the way. Someone might come along and take it all away." The community does step up when there are serious problems. On a large scale, that's hard to predict.
It's not easy knowing the downvotes need to be there, but finding ways to restrict and penalize downvote abuse, in code yet... ? That's an area where I'm useless.
Yeah, those artists ain’t coming back.
What a shame.
That’s what a lot of folks don’t seem to grasp. Misplaced negative energy is far more destructive than they realize.
Out of all content available worldwide on all platforms, can you think of anything that draws more money and attention than arts and entertainment? I can answer that for you. No.
That example I linked boils down to uneducated investors. And I don't mean stupid. People simply don't know what they have here. That's why they'll spend weeks developing systems that auto curate or delegation pools, effectively paying potential consumers to not consume (paying people to not focus on and buy products) or pooling hundreds of potential eyes into one pair of eyes to go around voting. Then look around, see little engagement, and think there's something wrong with the content. They paid people to NOT look at it.
Did you know, in order for a consumer to support content over the long term with a form of tips we call votes, all they have to do is take money they were going to throw in the garbage from their bank account and place it in their Hive account, technically not spending any money at that point...
I think downvotes/petty disputes over a few bucks, while there's a monster business model sitting right there and hardly anyone notices, while working incredibly hard to push it away without knowing; it's kinda silly.
These conversations, though educational, probably won't amount to much. The abuse is rare, so that's a good sign, people know the risks, they can counter the risks, they annoy people when used for anything other than countering wrongdoings, second layer is in effect so that's cool, and at the same time there are some acts here being rewarded for practically nothing. That in itself creates some of that negative energy you mentioned as well. Shrugs. I dunno. Plus I'm having all kinds of technical difficulties on my end so pardon those edits.