Recently I witnessed a heated discussion between a community founder/curator and a community member. The member disagreed with how he felt the rewards were distributed in the other's community and became quite condescending and accusatory about it. I also read a post recently about the STEM community where it seems they are feeling the need to explain themselves due to accusations of circle jerking. I'm not generally one to post on Hive topics, if I can avoid it, but a reality check might be in order for all of us.
There are names on this platform that nearly everyone knows, if they've been around long enough, and there are names well known in certain interest circles. It's easy to see them as rich and influential and imagine they came in with all this money. They either sit on a lot of Hive Power, or have control of an account which wields a fair amount of Hive Power. Some of these people may well have a lot of fiat money out in the real world too, but many of them are really just every day people, no wealthier than you or I. They just saw a need, created a community to support that and started to make a difference.
I'll use the @ocd founder as an example, sorry @acidyo, because few haven't heard of him and @ocd. Back when I first arrived here there were two significant curators. @curie was the official curation project whose sole goal was finding quality content and support it. Then @blocktrades would randomly drop votes, but that was a spare time thing, because we know his contribution to Hive (Steem at the time) is in other areas. As Hive grew, @curie grew and @blocktrades withdrew to focus on other things. At some point, @acidyo saw the need for another curation project, because @curie’s reach wasn't infinite, and OCD was born. Initially, they didn't have the impact that @curie did, but they garnered support and grew from there. With the rise of the bots, @ocdb was born with the idea to try and balance the scales and get at least some of the HP rewarding good content, not just bought content that paid. There have been plenty of discussions over the ethics of that, but that doesn't matter now, the bots issue has been sorted.
With the hardfork that put the bots to rest, @blocktrades gave OCD backing and Acid started the community, when communities arrived. So who is Acid? Is he some wealthy philanthropist? No, he's just a Finnish guy who likes gaming and has programming knowledge. He saw the opportunity to try and spread the Hive wealth to content creators who put in lots of effort and would get little in return without it. Surely he must be rich from all his Hive earnings now, though? Not likely. He lives in a first world country and the money you can make on Hive at this level doesn't go far. Much of the Hive Power wielded by the OCD accounts is delegated and those delegators get most of what the accounts make in return, because it's not for profit.
Every community I know of (admittedly I can't speak for 3speak, whose founder still has a level God status for me) was started by a regular person who had an interest and wanted to be able to encourage and support others who also had that interest. If they've done well and that community has grown, it's because they put the effort in and the interest was there. These founders and curators are teachers, mothers, manual labourers, nomads and even the technically homeless. Unless they live in a country where the dollar goes a long way, they cannot support themselves on what they make on Hive. Although some have fallen on hard enough times and are taking out little bits to try and put some food on the table, while their usual income streams are stopped by quarantine.
Those who appreciate the community founders often try to support them as a thank you for what they do, so it's not surprising that they might be seen to be getting high rewards on their personal content. Yet often their personal accounts get neglected as they spend more and more time keeping on to of a successful community and personal content decreases. And yes, bigger accounts might support community accounts more regularly than individual content, if they know that rewards from that get distributed through the community. It gives their HP more reach.
Founders of communities do what they do to try and get as much reward to those posting about that interest as they can. As a community founder and curator myself, I can tell you that the attention and rewards I get on some of our community member's posts are often way higher than the rewards I get on my own posts. The rewards I net for the communities I post for on the community accounts are higher than what I get on my own posts. Some days I look at the rewards on one of my personal posts that I spent days putting together and envy those I put in for curation (although I also acknowledge that my work isn't always on par with many of those I curate). This is why I make a point of trying to check the work of other curators I know, in order to put them forward for the kind of curation that they put so many others in for. Be aware as well, that curation projects tend to avoid curating their curators so as not to be accused of favouritism.
It's easy to see these well known names on Hive and see them as powerful and wealthy. This can lead to getting a bit star struck or resenting their perceived success, but the truth is, they are just people who have put their heart and soul into the projects they run and didn't give up. On the surface, it may not be apparent exactly how much the founders and curators are putting into a community. If the founder removes some of the funds from it to cash out, how can we be certain that they hadn't put way more than that in themselves to get the community account off the ground? Perhaps they've sacrificed more than that on their own account, for the sake of community.
I have a policy both online and offline and that's to assess whether the good someone brings outweighs the bad. For me, it doesn't matter if a founder or curator has processes I disagree with if their overall actions benefit more than they detract. I'm never going to agree with anyone 100%, but it doesn't mean I need to try to control them or alienate them. There's also that old saying, “Don't bite the hand that feeds.” and it's surprising how many people seem to do that.
As for circle jerking within communities, isn't the very purpose to be supporting a particular kind of content and encouraging a particular standard? This being the case, then the chances are it will generally be a certain group of people who keep getting the votes, if no-one else is bothering to post that level or type of content.
Hive bee courtesy of @sitaru
Well said. I am a fan of the community system. I like it. If I want to read a short story I know a few places I can go, if I want a longer one I know where to go. If I want to see photographs I have several communities I can visit. Art same thing.
If I want to read about cats, I don't need a bunch of horse manure post about horses and the best food to feed them to get the best manure for the compost pile, I want to read about cats, about fur ball foods and medications.
People that run the communities need to put up with a lot of shit from both sides, such as:
I have seen a lot of complaining, but I like the community system. For me it works, I have a place when I want to post to post something. A place to visit by mood. There are some things I simply am not interested in, some people I am simply not interested in, I am not going to vote for that content or those people. I follow people because they are know factors to me, I can vote and comment or not.
I would expect that people who are into homesteading are going to become friends with and vote for content from their friends and because of content and similar taste. The person sitting and living the penthouse life are going to vote on the best places to eat, visit or plays/shows to see, city life things. Sometime there will be cross voting but the reality is people vote on things, topic, communities they like. and the community owners/builders do put an enormous amount of time and effort into the higher quality communities.
Not all communities are the same, not all the owner care is the same, and when one runs into a well maintained community it gets followed, and builds a clientele that support each other and their community. That is not circle jerk voting, that is called community building.
It is a tough road the founders travel, and I do try to support them and the curation accounts with votes when able.
I often think the second dot point both when I'm wandering and when I have to play mod 😅
Do you get mute happy at that point?
Only if it's in violation of the rules XD
I'm fond of the communities too. I like that it means that I can post something completely of my usual genre Splinterlands and it can reach an interested audience, rather than me trying to punt it to my usual group of followers who have no interest in it. I think a lot of people have those different sides and at one point a few even started up separate accounts to keep the genres separate. Now there's no need.
That circle jerk label seems to be very liberally applied. How dare you not vote on something you're completely uninterested in! You're a circle jerker!!
And that is one thing I really hate about it also.
I've always thought 'circle jerking' was 'community building', unless it was the old system where the whales were all voting for each other, which doesn't seem to happen as much anymore (I could be wrong on this). I am so glad you see it that way too - I was always so uncomfortable with the term. This is all really well said - thankyou!
!ENGAGE25
ENGAGEtokens.It was a great history lesson, @minismallholding. I love the special interest groups on Hive but I do take exception to them being called communities. it is perhaps this fact that was causal to the tasteless, uncalled-for and aggressive incident I also witnessed. The misunderstanding about the mis-naming of the groups.
Fundamentally a Hive "community" is owned by an individual. The HP of that community, worked for by the group and its curators over time, remains owned by the Group Founder/Owner. Tomorrow that Hive Community Owner could power it all down and leave with the $$. Not much now but during a bull run could be very considerable. That's not a community, really. It's a commercial franchise around a special interest. In Thailand we call that a Benevolent Dictatorship - wonderful until it isn't.
@buggedout said it well that "communities" rely on altruism and meritocracy. They do. And if a "community owner" (tautology, no?) can close down and remove a curator who questions things, it's NOT a community. Especially if that said "community owner" made sure not all the key players were not privy to those questions.
I think the unfortunate incident we witnessed WAS asking reasonable questions. As rude and confrontational and inapparopriate as it was, it was equally a horribly cetralized, non-Hive thing to do to close him down. I say that as someone who has history with that particlular indvidual and no, there is NO love lost! LOL.
Decentralized community MUST make room for people who are not like us, asking dificult questions. Closing them down is a level of censorship we should resist, however uncomfortable it is.
I will continue to enjoy some of the benefts of the special interest groups on Hive, but until the ownership of the group assets is decentralized, they're not communities.
I don't know much about the particular incident or community you are referring to, but I absolutely 100% agree that the "Communities" feature needs some decentralised governance. The centralised ownership of individual communities is a major flaw in the implementation of Communities here on HIVE.
The incident occured because the rather rude individual assumed decentralized was the standard for Hive, and it should be. The "communitues" as they are currently known are fundaminetally privately owned special interest groups. It's this fact that I believe causes confusion and triggered the animosity.
!ENGAGE 25
ENGAGEtokens.The stacking community knows a little about this. #toosoon
Indeed. Though if you are talking about the incident from over 2 and a half years ago its probably #toolongago and people either don't remember or the lessons been lost.
Hmm, but how to decentralise it using code? The nearest thing at the moment is the delegation aspect, where you can retrieve your investment at any point if you're not happy with the direction it's taking. It does really rely on trust for the rest of it, which is why I feel that community leaders/founders should be open and honest about what they're doing and most try to be, which is how they earn the group's trust.
Something I've always done with HomeEdders is to lay out my thoughts and plans and invite the community to speak up if they have any ideas or disagree with any approaches and I regularly remind them that this is their community too. To be honest, I rarely get much response and with I did, because I don't always know what I'm doing. I haven't put any of my own money in, because I don't want to feel like it's mine and risk wanting to pull something from it. I also wouldn't request anyone else invest in it or even delegate. The delegations we have were just given with no request. Admittedly, I do wonder what I'd do if the community folded. If I had to step back, I'd hope that someone could the over. Best to pick someone who doesn't really want the responsibility, so the don't turn into that benevolent dictator, like @ryivhnn. 😜 Funnily enough, I only made the community because no-one else was stepping up. I'm happy just helping out other groups. If I had to disband the community I'd look at sharing it amongst the members or transferring to another community if that's what everyone wanted.
Yes, @buggedout certainly has some insight into problems within communities. I believe his speaking up and airing the problems was instrumental in working towards a change. I wasn't involved in the community, but his insights pointed out pitfalls to avoid.
The incident mentioned at the start isn't the only one that sparked this post. Yes, founders do need to expect the hard questions and many do expect them, but laying into them with assumptions before asking isn't helpful and is likely to just get them cut off. There are way more vindictive people here who would go much further too, as we well know from the flag wars. My policy, if I don't like they way things are done, is ask politely and/or walk away. No point in trying to control what you can't.
It can be decentralised within the code but it'd need more development work. Off the top of my head you could have a "workflow" for setting up a community. It could get set up as it does now - with a benevolant dictator type power so that a founder(s) could get it going, but once it matures, members have been added and it's ready to "float" you could have on-chain elections for moderators (or any required roles) and just brick the founder account. The community could then effectively self govern in a democratised, decentralised way.
Community assets are a bit trickier, but I believe there is a solution there that involves multi-signatory accounts that could be signed by elected mods. Again, more development needed but potentially this is not far away.
It'd be really interesting to see how they might work, and I like the idea of transparent elections for decisions, though it seems exhausting to have every single decision vetted. Sometimes you just gotta experiment on the fly and hope it'll work, sometimes decisions come from community discussion, sometimes they're just nothing really to lose sleep over.
As a community leader, I don't actually want to be a dictator, despite what others might think of me. But it's super hard to have the purse strings and have people trust you with them. Who is really to say I was going to walk away with the community funds and not distribute them to the people who've been working with the community? Transparency and trust are difficult here. Multi signatory accounts with trusted mods would be great - however, we'd be subject to same criticism - oh, that 'group' of people are siphoning money (even if the money was for their own time and effort, others might not see it that way). It's a nutty and complex issue.
As a leader (and to get this straight, I hate the term and I hate being one - I dont feel comfortable with it at all) I don't appreciate it when people demand things be done differently, in a quite rude, aggressive and confrontational manner (for example) - but they're always going to see my actions and decisions as going against the decentralised vibe of the place. In an ideal world, everyone would be polite and moderate, and we'd reach decisions together. Damn if I don't wish that all the time. I love and celebrate different ideas and I love suggestions and input and diverse voices, but sometimes you're going to get a 'team member' get nasty and whilst the group might all separately agree to cut loose that team member, the person is always going to see it as a dictatorship, no matter what. The leaders always cop the flak and are always held accountable even though they are trying to do the best for everyone and taking everyone's views into account. I think it's a rare community indeed that doesn't truly have the best interests of their community at heart and I don't think we've really had an instance yet of a leader truly doing 'the wrong thing'. And as Mini says, there's always another side to the story. I guess we're always taking that risk, trusting in community leaders to have our best interests at heart.
The other thing is - and I really agree with @eco-alex here - the community leaders are using the ones who put the vast majority of time and effort into all the front and back end work that has to be done to build and maintain a community, even if people don't see the work that goes into it. It's virtually impossible to find people that will put in similiar hours and passion and dedication - and honestly, the burn out is real. I'm so grateful for the team that helps me (one of which has the keys too, by the way - so I can't power down without him stopping it haha - and I trust him implicitly not to cut and run) and the amazing people who are the passion behind this community - honestly, melts my heart - but bottom line is the leader has to make the hard calls in the end and that's quite the burden.
I like @minismallholding's comment that
and @mattclarke's comment about walking with your feet, or starting up another community.
There's always going to be things you don't like about particular groups or how they're run, and that's fine - that's the beauty of choice.
Sorry I'm starting to ramble and maybe even talk in circles - I don't see an easy solution to people's disatisfaction with how communities might be run at all. All I know is that as a leader I operate from a place of good intention, and sometimes I get it right, and sometimes I don't. I rely on the community to advise and direct and assist me, but I can't tolerate unkindness and behaviour that goes against our core ethos, and when the majority suggests it's a good idea to ask someone to leave due to their behaviour or comments against people in the group, then that's the way it's gotta be. Communities can be really, really unpleasant when someone's being vindicative or aggressive, that's for sure. And just as we wouldn't tolerate it in real life, we simply can't tolerate it in communities. And I know a lot of leaders don't take these decisions lightly.
I hear you and there is a bit here, but I'll just touch a couple of points. You mention "Leader" a lot and my personal view is that the world needs to move away from having all powerful leaders and self-govern more.
I like the (old) idea of a "Representative" or even a "Custodian" who can be empowered by the community to do certain tasks or take certain responsibilities. Thats kind of how I see my own role in my own community. It doesn't mean I can't show some leadership, but I don't see myself as a "Leader" per se (capital L)
While I also support more direct democracy in the real world, it becomes unworkable to vote on every minute detail of every thing. People need to be empowered to make a few decisions and take responsibility for outcomes and if the community is not happy with those outcomes - then then just vote them out (dis-empower them)
We need to remember we are on a decentralised blockchain. If we're going to have any credibility we need to practise what we preach and show how the principles of decentralised governance and democratised technology can have real world applications that actually work.
Oh I hate the term leader - and I am always struggling for another word!!! I even feel uncomfortable seeing myself as one, and certainly didn't set out to be one in the traditional sense of the word. Custodian is nice - and I like what @angryman calls it too - founder.
Here's to decentralised solutions that work!
i dont think we need to decentralise the code.. nor do we need to complicate things. . WE can share the keys and base our relationships on trust. A community without trust is anyways not a community.. I like to keep things simple.. when the community leaders share the keys there is no one person who holds all the control.. decisions are then made as a group.. if there is one!
The reality is that there are Very few people who want to make the committment and time needed to warrant holding active keys or being in a position of that kind of responsibility. .. so i dont think this issue is nearly as important as it may at first seem.. we are as decentralised as we each wish to be. WE dont need the code to dictate that, we just need the freedom to operate that way, which we can if we choose it.
include @minismallholding
Sounds very democratic. It will be interesting to see how it works. It would require some physical involvement of members. I can imagine that, rather like real life, it would only be a few who take enough interest to be involved physically, but as long as everyone's happy, that's the main thing.
Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu I am not managing communities again 🤣 this bloody crypto thing makes everything even worse 🤣
Damn, why didn't I say this? 'this bloody crypto thing makes it even worse' - that's so true!
I don't know that community ownership is that big a deal, to be honest.
If I mismanage SouthAustralia, there's nothing stopping you and @galenkp from starting a new one. @shaidon might start posting on both, then gradually stop posting on mine.
As long as there's no friction the members can vote with their feet.
Until they do, it's probably best that one owner has some incentive to set the culture, set roles, moderate content etc.
Spoken like a true AnCap :)
Why can't members just vote without using their feet?
Because it's mine :)
...and I totally support your private property rights.
I just don't think it can really be called a "Community" if it is really somebodies private property. It just seems a bit disingenuous for one thing to be masquerading as another and misunderstanding over this is possibly what led to the controversy described in the OP.
The name 'Community', particularly in this uber-decentralised environment; can absolutely be misleading. No argument.
I personally think the word 'Community' should be reserved for non-profits.
Of course, then you have duration questions.
Am I undertaking to keep it non-profit indefinitely?
If I change my mind, is loss of some members the only consequence?
What if I sell it to some Chinese guy and don't mention all this?
Absolutely. I think that transparency and some sort of declaration of intent or "vision" is important to avoid misunderstandings about what something IS or at least is intended to become.
Your questions are great and there are plenty of examples of people choosing personal enrichment at the expense of people who thought they had a say or stake in things - but when it came to it they really didn't. These kinds of situations need to be avoided as they can create incredible grievance.
I was suggesting "workflows" which is a bit of a dev term, but basically something could start out as one thing and morph into another over time (when it's ready and meets certain pre-conditions). For example, you could create an "Incubator" that could mature and morph into a "Community" or a "Club" or a "Company" depending on ownership and governance models that might evolve as it grows and matures.
Lol! Simples!
Let's be honest, people flock to the community which will offer them the best votes. So all you really need to do is that. So Shaidon might complain you're mis-managing it, but he's staying because your vote's better. 😉
First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the frogcake.
I want frogcake!!!!!
It's only ever 3 Adelaide meetups away :)
You won't let us in..... waaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I've been noticing that with a couple of the art communities 🙄
🎵 Money makes the world go round...🎶
Money changes everything... damn, now I have a Cyndi Pauper earworm....
I have to confess, when I first really paid attention to the whole idea of community was at SF4 last year in BKK. My initial reaction was why bother, if we have tags? I think the communities haven't developed into the people community as know with a lot of interaction and engagement like on Discord, but more as a dipository for similar posts.
That isn't a bad thing to be honest, especially with OCD's push to support, more and more niche content creators are getting more exposure.
Many community leaders do it as a passion for the love of their hobby or to achieve their aim to launch their project. And many don't realise it actually cost to run these communities. Like for example Pinmapple has to pay for hosting fees every year, as well as HBD40 every month to access the Sql database.
If we didn't have support from the community, particularly some whales who've been brilliant in supporting us, the project would have died a long time ago as the last thing we want to do is to dig into author's hard earned rewards to fund us.
I was the same, when they first started. Probably didn't help that few people were using them. I also imagined it might take away the need for discord, but it didn't. Now people are using the niche ones more, they are becoming more useful as a depository for similar posts. I find them most useful from the other side when curating, however, to have them all in one place to go through. I still have to search the tags for the HomeEdders ones, but not so much for #naturalmedicine.
"Don't Bite the Hand that Feeds." The title sounds like slave talk to me... :)
It just depends on your viewpoint and what the actual issue was about I'm sure.
Often it can be just human emotion or the actual truth, I've got into a similar personal situations myself, usually with some usually snobby people or I think I know it all people, I have a diploma people so I know best no matter the facts people or Fake and political people who use fake niceness as a tool, often women 😛, sucking up people, The I'm better then you people, usually delusional or the what-ever people... business as usual, on our monkey planet in my opinion.
But some are tamed monkeys and some are not, which one are you? 🤠
P.s. I also saw a person who knew more way about the topic then the community founder, did you also see that person? What a coincidence... so did I.
😆 Very true, it depends on the issue. For me that saying becomes particularly appropriate when the relationship is already one sided and the person always taking then starts abusing the giver. Thats a sure way to lose your meal ticket! However, even as a slave it's still appropriate. Keep them placated until everything's in place to claim your freedom. 😉
We all want to feel like we're a bit better than others, that's just our animal nature. Whether we can use our human intelligence to override it is another matter entirely and some (many?) can't.
Hmm, tamed and untamed monkeys. Thats actually something that's been rattling around in my head quite a bit recently. We often label an animal as intelligent if it can be trained to be obedient, but is that really a marker of intelligence? We even apply it to our children. The obedient child at school who follows the rules and always gets their work done is labelled as clever, while the disruptive child is not. Yet plenty of disruptive children go on to be successful if they're not beaten down enough. Turns out they were just too free thinking to play the rules game. Yet in some ways it is intelligent to follow the rules and be obedient, until you have the resources to break free. That's forward thinking.
Well said!
I might also add that in so many complains where someone disagrees with how posts here on Hive should be supported and curated and who should be upvoted, really just sound petty and envious. Not saying that the people complaining would feel like that but... they just sound like that. Especially if they want to point out how their own post that wasn't upvoted at all or enough, is so much better or superior than the post of someone that was upvoted by the community or people who have larger amount of Hive power.
And as there are people all over the world who always seem to think that you over there do not deserve that much pay for your hard work but at the same time they do deserve because they have worked so hard, the same thing applies to Hive too.
Envy and the lack of respecting the work of other people.
Fortunately there are also good people in the world. :)
I didn't want to go into that part! 😉 I'm sure many of us look at other's rewards with a bit of envy, but whinging about it certainly isn't going to help improve our own rewards.
Just ask... actually you don't even have to ask and I will go where no-one else want's to go. :D
Someone comes along and offers to do a job on Hive, something that has the potential to increase the wealth and improve the user experience, directly or indirectly, of everyone on Hive. Everyone else has the opportunity to see what they are doing and how they are doing it and decide whether they want to be involved with them. Or not. I see no need for any additional controls. Good manners, now, that's a different matter.
I can't really add anything to that. Simply and beautifully stated.
Very astutely put. Most would readily agree that communities are valuable and need to be fostered, but not many would recognise that the culture of a community is just as important as the community itself. If a community fosters a culture of entitlement and selfishness it's probably not going to make it, but if it has a culture of altruism and meritocracy....well who knows if even the sky is a limit ;)
One of my favourite and most active communities is the second. Occasionally a bad penny comes along, but they soon move on again. Especially when everyone else refuses to take the bait and bad mouth others with them.
😍
Well written/presented @minismallholding, I'm glad I stumbled across this post in my feed… Some commenters were as interesting to read as well.
As 'Founder' of Free Speech Community (@hive-168088) that designation is one I prefer rather than 'Owner' which is an automatically added label placed upon the account by @hive administrators.
Though I don't resent the default owner designation, I don't consider myself as such; rather, in my mind, I regard this community more as a Co-op in some sense of the word. My members share in ownership as far as I'm concerned and I proceed with this thought in mind while giving thought to any actions I may consider taking.
The "Circle Jerking" complaint, in my opinion is often one I don't give much attention to, for reasons already covered here by you and others who responded.
I welcome ALL posts though in Free Speech Community, regardless of content; how could I not without being hypocritical?
Cheers
Indeed! 😆
I wasn't aware of this community. I'll have to drop by.
The FS community was started right before the steem fiasco, so it's rather in it's infancy compared to others which formed prior to official release of 'Communities'.
Thanks for showing an interest @minismallholding - I wish you well😎
I prefer founder too. @angryman, I didn't realise you were 'founder' of the free speech community. In my mind I see it as a co-op too, or really want it to be! Really well said. On the free speech spectrum, however, I'm not a fan of people airing dirty laundry and being unkind, but that's just me - I understand this to probably be subjective but no matter how I try to turn that prism and consider it otherwise, I just can't shift this view of mine - though utter free speech appeals to me as an ideal. Do you find that's often an argument that comes up in 'free speech' discussion - ie. it's all good unless you're being nasty?
'Founder' has a more welcoming ring to it and I'd be quite willing to turn the reigns over to another/others in the future should I fail to commit enough time to the community.
Yes @riverflows...I do come across such an argument and position with regards to discussions about 'free speech'. It can pose such a dilemma when choosing how to proceed at times (personally) without hindering someone's 'voice'.
I should remain neutral,like Switzerland during the war...lol...
I've met a few of those very high powered accounts at a couple of pre-hive fests.
For the most part they're just decent, pretty ordinary people.
Dan, although a multi millionaire in real life, is very down to earth. Solid bloke!
He sweated out sun block just like the rest of us in Thailand last year.
Posted using Dapplr
So he's mortal after all!? 😆
I love how you call it the pre-hive fest!
thank you So much for sharing this.. and i thank you for prompting a much needed debate / chat. instead of responding to this post i will use my time to respond to the comments below as theres a lot to say! much love and respect to you x
I'm glad it's sparked some debate. I don't see an issue with questioning the community founders and moderators, I even think discussions should come out into the open, but no need for the attacks I've been seeing lately. I think sometimes we can forget we're just dealing with normal people, not unfeeling tyrants.
yes totally, i responded to a comment from artemislives.. its a long one but i feel it covers this issue and other important connected topics. .. i think it will be great to chat about it and see what we as a community think.. not just one or two people!
#POSH
This post has been manually curated by @steemflow from Indiaunited community. Join us on our Discord Server.
Do you know that you can earn a passive income by delegating to @indiaunited. We share 80 % of the curation rewards with the delegators.
Here are some handy links for delegations: 100HP, 250HP, 500HP, 1000HP.
Read our latest announcement post to get more information.
Please contribute to the community by upvoting this comment and posts made by @indiaunited.
Straight from the heart I believe.
Thank you. Appreciate the comment and support
Thanks for the history lesson. I feel this was eloquently put!
You're welcome. 😁
It's been quite interesting thinking back and realising just how much things have evolved.
Yes, it's been a lot of change. I am glad that Hive has come to be what it is and i am excited for the future here. =)
Hear hear!
Big hug from Portugal ❤️
Congratulations @minismallholding! You received a personal badge!
Wait until the end of Power Up Day to find out the size of your Power-Bee.
May the Hive Power be with you!
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
Congratulations @minismallholding! You received a personal badge!
Participate in the next Power Up Day and try to power-up more HIVE to get a bigger Power-Bee.
May the Hive Power be with you!
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
Thanks for sharing your point of view, an interesting and educational read, good to know some Hive history as well!
I still think that I'm a newbie, until I get told I'm giving a Hive history lesson! 🤣
I'm pretty certain the "circle-jerking" isn't "the problem".
It's the hypocrisy.
And it doesn't matter how much an individual "contributes" to the "community" or whether they're "rich" or "poor", they should be able to answer questions.
Anyone who refuses to provide reasons for their actions is, by definition, an UNREASONABLE person.
Most community coordinators are happy to answer questions and provide reasons for their actions and they generally do. In fact, all those I've recently witnessed who have come under attack have answered those questions, although they might have been a bit more forthcoming had they been asked in a more reasonable manner. They could then have explained everything fully, instead of trying to defend themselves as they did. When you're under attack, it's hard to know exactly what answers are wanted and to have the in depth conversation that allows you to explain all your steps. I recently found out, after a reasonable discussion with one coordinator, exactly what it was that was getting people wound up about certain transactions, which made absolute sense once explained. Over the years, each one was is fact to benefit the community and every member was better off for it at the time. Recent members had no experience of it, because they weren't there at that time.
Yes, that has been my experience as well, up to a point.
I've specifically asked about "perceived community leaders" using copyrighted materials in their profile pics and splash backgrounds and in their posts without "proper attribution" while at the same time they've aggressively downvoted people for similar "violations" (often with little to no warning). And instead of some "principled guideline" (which I was hoping for), I was simply informed that "memes, profile pics and splash pages don't count". And, "don't mess with the big dogs". Which is frankly, logically incoherent.
(IFF) you're going to strictly enforce some "don't use images without permission" policy (THEN) it should be uniformly enforced regardless of "who" the "offender" might be or in what capacity the image is displayed.
Sounds like a community worth walking away from!
Yeah, maybe, I'm not really eager to "name names" but they're all still here and so am I.
You are wise...just stalking you to see where you have disappeared to!
😆 I'm still here. Just been caught up more with curation and running around like a headless chicken in the real world!
How are you doing?
Very interesting article and lots of comments to read. Thank you. I found you following me and broused your blog.
This article caused my particular interest and so...
... here my thoughts:
We have all become far too good at advertising and marketing without realising it. I would not define Hive and the common activities as "communities". It is simply wrong to call something communal that follows very clear capitalist and profit-making rules. One just has to ask the question: How many people would be registered here and make an effort if there were no upvotes and wallets?
I am one such case, but I hardly think I count. I have been blogging and using comment functions on the internet long before the crypto platforms. In fact, when you are completely independent of income, blogging is the most enjoyable because it is detached from sustaining yourself. Once it becomes a source of income, everything starts to be a bit of a hassle: the expected regularity of publications, the feedback, the very presence. You have to think about where to delegate what, how to vote for whom, where to send your attention and before you know it, you have a full-time job that demands more than it gives.
You may earn a lot of money or make a good cut, but freedom gets lost at some point and is hardly worth talking about. With the disadvantage that does not occur in this way in the real world of work: You don't have any physical contact with the people, they're spread all over the world and even if it looks fun, it's just not the same to lift a beer together or to post "Beer-Lover". It's kind of a poor substitute and that's why online "communities" break down much faster than, for example, even loose and spontaneous communities like a carnival or shooting club or allotment gardeners who only organise something together seasonally but are guaranteed to meet again when there's a break of several months. That is hardly possible on the net.
Although I have fun here and have learned a lot about human thinking, but above all about the technology behind the cryptos, I would say that where it says "social media", there is rarely anything innovative to be found in it (though when it DOES, I find it great). Neither social media nor community really correspond to what is happening here online: it is an imitation of what we already know and have internalised from "out there": a construct built on external supply, capital and energy, which we would like to give the appearance of something communal and social, because firstly it sounds better and secondly it feels better.
My definition of community is this: it is a sharing and gifting community that cannot do without real material goods. These include food, shelter and companionship. These jointly provided services cannot be offset against each other and therefore there is no hand to bite, because it is always the many who would then have to be bitten, and that is simply not possible.
According to my definition, community is anarchy that does not establish any written rules, because the rule itself is based on principles that are not to be broken and that impose punishments or penalties for breaking the rules. However, this is already no longer an unwritten rule, but then it is a matter of laws which, because their observance is (have to be) controlled, are counterproductive.
As soon as a so-called community insists on compliance with rules, it loses itself in control instances and campaign work that cares more about its rules than about what the whole thing is for. A self-regulating system that can cope with inequality and conflict. In an anarchist community, what is fascinating and good is the tolerance of the most diverse participants: the crazy, the unadjusted, the eccentric, the outliers, precisely those who attract attention through unusual and irritating behaviour, but who are not cruel in doing so. But all the others who don't stand out, who follow rules and don't cause stress and trouble, are just as important and valuable for the functioning of the whole. In such a community garden there are no "weeds", but everything has value and significance.
Such a community only needs an adjustment here and there, hardly needs intervention, the culture that grows through it has strength precisely because it is "weak" in exercising control. It is therefore naturally very susceptible to pathological tendencies.
Bye from Germany to Australia (right?)