When the trust is eroded then there’s not a lot left! I think we still have a ways to go with personal biases getting involved here, particularly with down votes. There’s been quite a bit of conversation on that front lately and I think it’s great and important to have. We claim we are censorship resistant but some are trying to censor people who are bringing messages on here that it seems they disagree with. There are some examples I don’t disagree with but there are many I do disagree with. It’s improved some that’s for sure which I think is great, so let’s hope that we can keep that up and get to a point where biases are left alone. We are no better than the mainstream platforms if we are trying to censor opinions that some don’t like.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The message is still available - the downvotes are the rewards on it. There is a very difference and especially since the pool is a shared pool - the rewards are not owned by anyone until in a wallet (after 7 days) up until then, negotiation can happen. People can argue about why downvote or not etc - but the mechanisms of the blockchain at this point are clear. For those mechanisms to change, support to change needs to be built, but unfortunately, the people wanting no downvotes or only in certain cases are expecting everyone to act on some social/ cultural contract that doesn't exist. For many people for example plagiarism is punishable - yet people still plagiarise and think it is fine. Some will say, that is what downvotes are for - others will say, downvotes are for however I want to use them. The laws of blockchain takes opinion out of it from a practical standpoint - but still allow people discuss changing those laws.
On steem a group of users who were heavily abusing the rewards pool from everyone's but their own perspective, would never have changed their behavior otherwise. Once they had control (through the takeover) they went back to do exactly what they were, except with full control and no repercussions - That is Steem now - a cesspool of their activity.
Opinions are still heard and seen here and as I have said to those same people, they can actually create different interfaces and tokens to support themselves and make sure they have teir own rules and encouragement mechanisms. Leo has done it, Splinterlands has done it, Oneup and Splintertalk have done it - the thing is, that group *wants HIVE for rewards, because they know that they are unable to generate the value in their own token, because the people they want to give voice to, are net sellers, not investors.
I don't think the investors into Hive should be supporting the sellers who devalue Hive. But that is my opinion. :)
I think we will agree to disagree on this one! :D
:D
Btw, this post wasn't actually about that - it was just an example of what needs to happen in the economy as a whole. Opt-out of it and into something better.