Maybe there's some aspect that I don't understand as I'm fairly new to this community, but what if the readers and curators don't mind that the content is also being posted on multiple platforms?
If that was the issue then it would make more sense to just make people aware that the content is not exclusive to Hive and let the reader decide whether they still want to upvote it rather than making the decision for them by canceling out all of their votes.
There's no issue in posting to multiple platforms. Hive isn't in the business of restricting anyone on where else they can share their content. That's never been the issue at all and it's perfectly ok to have your content here and let's say on Reddit. The topic at hand here is that Hive has a 7-day monetization timer. Once that content is monetized, it's done. Content creators all know this (it's a basic function of Hive) and strive to have fresh content for their fans. When they see someone cheating the system by reposting, they report that account.
Is the issue that it's old content that was posted on a different platform a long time ago? I just just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.
Regardless of this specific situation, I think the bigger issue is massive downvoting and blacklisting in general. It makes me really concerned about how easy it would be for bad actors to take similar actions. If Hive grows big enough then governments, corporations, and other organizations will surely use similar methods to centralize power and suppress dissenting voices.
👆 @jordand89 This is a very good point and one that I have been bringingUP now for about a year. It seems that people here do not want to think about the grater ramifications of continuing to implement Hive Integrity in the current undeveloped way. We need a Downvote but we need a Downvote that is INTELLIGENT and makes use of code so as to preserve the resistibility to central bad actors. Marketing Hive as a complete social tokenized solution will always be a hard sell to freedom minded investors until the finer points (like the one you have broughtUP here) are addressed and innovated.
Hi @jordan89,
Here's some of my initial thoughts about the re-use of prior content as a body of work. The problem with @guiltyparties rational here is that he is making this issue a black or white one. Clearly there is a line between outright SPAM of this nature... and the artistic process.
I think that this needs to be broughtUP as it isn't so cut and dry after all.
Here's my official comment on the idea that one should NEVER make use of their older content.
https://peakd.com/hive/@wil.metcalfe/re-leaky20-r71uw8
@world-travel-pro and @ura-soul you might also be interested in the differentiation I am bringing to this topic. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the discussion.
@wil.metcalfe
Comet Ranker
Hive and Steem are based on anarcho principles and to me, that means 'let the market decide' when it comes to economic systems. In that sense, I don't find it really natural or healthy for groups to be imposing their own rules on the free flow of economic activity. Actually, this kind of thing seems to always follow the same patterns/results - which mirror government/corporate control. There really is only 'anarchy' and 'not anarchy' - with staying in anarchy being somewhat of a challenge. It would be so great if the community agreed on things like this and decided to aim to stick more to anarchy - even just as an experiment. This doesn't mean the reward pool is totally open for abuse - if anything it means more engagement from a decentralised community who use their own downvotes in a manual way to address problems in realtime. Automation can be agreed upon, perhaps based on transparent smart contracts to remove totally blatant spam, or maybe not.
The other issues is the decentralisation of the token itself. Originally, Steem had a plan to decentralise the tokens as they saw this as necessary for Steem to meet it's destiny as a decentralised system. Then stupid crap happened and they never delivered on their claimed vision (maybe it was a lie all along). Anyway, we don't seem to have a real vision regarding the decentralisation of the token at the moment and the net result of that is that the biggest holders simply do whatever they can (within the PR vision they create for themself to justify their actions) to try to not let the token precipitate outwards.
We have, on the one hand, Marky complaining that there aren't enough (subjectively) good posts to upvote so he then upvotes software projects instead that can help Hive.. but at the same time we have many people complaining and leaving because they feel abused by the heavy downvoting and lack of respect/coherence in that process. The two things are connected - a lack of 'good' posts to upvote is due to a lack of people wanting to invest time into a system that is overly centralised and overly able to create feelings of disempowerment in content creators who feel they have an ever growing range of options online and don't really feel a need to get stuck in the Hive box.
Tech systems are human systems before they are tech systems, so a failure to respect and empathise with the humans involved in such a social system will always lead to system failure eventually. We need a shared vision among key stakeholders that respects personal will. We lack that currently.
No, it was posted right here. In regards to massive downvoting/blacklisting is in general no one on Hive would support or condone anything where a bad actor can just arbitrary decide. The chain also doesn't allow for censorship, it just doesn't. Anyone can add whatever content they wish to the blocks. We're currently looking forward to some big projects connecting and being built on Hive. Not going to spill the beans but there's some awesome stuff coming in the future.
I think of the whole downvote drama as rewards disagreement. Just as anyone is free to upvote content they support, so should anyone with stake downvote content they don't support as a consequence of freedom. Regarding censorship, people can still access what is posted on the backend even if the frontends don't display them and they can still get searched on google crawlers. I searched for those users that have negative reps way down the negative and their content can still be visible.
No one can deplatform you on Hive, you just don't get the social rewards of the 1st layer for the downvotes. But the second layer is another option where some tribes have a frontend that enables you to share your content and have it visible.
No one cares about who posts what on Steemit. I and many others do not log in or look at Steemit. We have Hive which we do use.