I'm actually fine with the downvote on this post, it's just a copy/paste of a comment I made elsewhere with extra context added with the intention of getting a conversation started, and it was a success in that regard. However, the downvotes you made elsewhere look very ideologically targeted, centered on the very demographic that would seek out alternatives to the big platforms out there.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The demographics are fine, and no one is blocked off from posting. That's a core value add of a blockchain platform. But that's not the same as suggesting they should earn arbitrarily large rewards. I'm entitled to have a view on that which might be different from those who upvote.
That's the nature of the economic system we have here: rewards come from upvotes minus downvotes. If you come and sign up for the relatively low censorship (none at the pure blockchain level) then the reward economics unavoidably come along with that.
The nature of the economic system was supposed to entail a voting system that leverages the wisdom of the crowd. Please check the third paragraph of Steem's blue paper. They meant this key fundamental as the "smart" aspect of the token. And that's because if it worked, If Steem could harness the wisdom of the crowd, then the sum of all upvotes and downvotes would equate to a surprisingly near accurate result.
But unfortunately, all we have right now in the way of up and downvotes are just regular. There's nothing special about it that will help us to glean the crowd's intelligence. So I comprehend why you're doing what you're doing, but the function designed to arrive at the final result never worked. Now that you know the wisdom of the crowd does not work here on HIVE, why not just do like a regular marketplace?
If you like an article, upvote it, and if you do not, then why not ignore it? Unless, of course, you're sitting on some genius code fix that can salve the problem a bit. Here is how real crowd wisdom can get assessed. It's impossible to do here, but that doesn't mean we should abandon PoB. We need a new definition. It can be code dependant or independent, or a mixture of both.
But if it doesn't rhyme a bit with the natural markets, people will scoff, whine, and complain. When I see people like @steevc say: "we just got to normalize it." He's missing one colossal factor. If we keep getting new users, you have to keep on normalizing the upside-down HIVE-only behavior. It's a losing battle if we want it to sprout wings, take off, and fly to the moon. I hope our chain can discover what we're missing before the competitors do. If not we'll lose all the advantage.
Real Wisdom of the Crowd.
I'm not sure auto-votes have much 'wisdom'. We get plenty of posts making good rewards that may not really deserve them, but many will be scared to downvote. So normalising downvotes could mean that we can do it without fear when we think rewards need adjusting. Then we need people to not take it as a personal attack. It's all about perception and expectation.
!ENGAGE 20
"We get plenty of posts making good rewards that may not really deserve them,"Hey, @steevc, "deserve" ain't got nothing to do with it. That's my point. If the up and downvotes do not harness the crowd's wisdom, then we're just fooling ourselves when we think we can divine what rewards ought to get removed. In this situation, we have a massive stakeholder/DEV who is targeting a specific community because he disagrees with the content politically.
It doesn't matter how much effort went into a particular post, or how well written, or the fact that it's not a scam, spam, or plagiarism. None of these things seem to matter. And to be quite frank, it puts us in a situation like Facebook and Youtube. You know, the whole cancel/demonetization culture that is driving those folks to HIVE in the first place.
If we do the same thing here at HIVE, then we've lost that special thing that's supposed to make this place a shining jewel to vibrant and lively content creators who have real things to say. We should be capitalizing in the marketplace right now. All we have to do to take advantage of the situation is the exact opposite of what the big social media companies are doing.
By not canceling people for their opinion. Or by not de-earmarking (demonetizing) rewards for what they said. There are a lot of intelligent people those platforms are driving away. Let us not be that guy. Let us not be Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and the like by engaging in thought control. Let the ideas flow freely instead of trying to use downvotes as a stick to discourage people.
I watch what you guys do on the chain a lot. Interestingly, one of your go-to arguments is to say: "Join a community and blog there if you don't like getting downvoted and quit trying to take all our precious HIVE." But what if I turned that upside down and said: Why don't you start a downvote community if you guys like downvoting so much?
You can have a downvote token and downvote all the subscribers based on whatever wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey metric by which ya'll are pretending to operate. I think you can gauge the popularity of your actions by seeing if said community thrives and grows. Smooth could be the Simon Cowell, and you could be that gal who had a hit song in the late '80s with the cartoon cats.
Not sure who 'you guys' are. I am speaking as an individual on this. I do work with others on anti-abuse stuff, but that is not related to countering rancho/haejin votes.
Maybe I should stop second-guessing what smooth does, but then I have seen what he has said. People can choose if they believe him.
People are happy to take votes from big accounts who never explain their actions, but not downvotes where reasons are given. All votes are about distributing the rewards, so if someone gets $100 on a post then that's less for everyone else. The system is designed so those with the biggest stake can make the biggest adjustments. It's an imperfect system, but I can't see it radically changing.
People are not being 'cancelled' and even smooth cannot stop them posting. What counts as abuse or is bad for Hive can be a personal opinion what we are allowed to act on. There are no absolutes.
We will be judged by what we do here as our actions are public. If you look you will see that I upvote lots of people and do zero self-votes. I downvote where I think it is appropriate and don't have to justify that to you. Anyone is free to downvote me.
Peace.
So basically, you admit the system is imperfect. But then, for whatever reason, when it comes to smooth's downvote behavior, you lean into the "might makes right" fallacy. And thus, stay calm, carry on, and continue to downvote liberally in an imperfect system instead of trying to make it more perfect because why exactly? You know what, never mind, consider it a hypothetical. Some people are wired wrong and deserve the hell they're building. You remind me of the guy's wife in this video: Venal, vacant, void, vapid, vacuous, and empty of character. If Smooth were Mao Zedong, you'd be arguing that he's got every right by might to carry out the mass culling that he did. After all, he is the chairman of his self-proclaimed organization.
Keep shitting on abled content creators, and HIVE will be forever doomed to live in relative obscurity. You've got a helluva lot more stake than I do, so it's going to hurt you more now that HIVE isn't sitting at least five dollars than it does me. We need to get a "cancel account button" on this platform that deletes all content with an exit survey. Maybe the consensus of something like that data could show you, boneheads, the net effect of your activities over the past two years. You're driving HIVE's reputation into the shitter, and it's not okay with the majority of stakeholders. But again, the majority of stakeholders don't equate to the majority of stake, so I guess this POS is Smooth's to wreck as he pleases.
You know what you're doing, and so does he. And as you can gauge by the consensus of feedback on this post, you're on the wrong side of history, i.e., if HIVE will ever be blessed enough to get one of those.
You don't know me, so don't make assumptions.
I have worked hard to help build Hive up and not just for my own benefit. I don't want people to leave.
You are one of several people I have seen who had posts with a rancho or xeldal vote 'downgraded'. You still made more than I make most of the time. Did you complain about big votes with no explanation or did you just do a little dance and enjoy it? I'll make my own assumptions :)
Peace.
I've had my account nuked 'the powers the be', over this last 6 months (check out my account every.single.post.)
The place is a joke, where tyranny shouts 'muh community'.
Authoritarianism, with sycophantic whale fellatio experts, to keep them propped them up.
ENGAGEtokens.New users are not on auto-voters, while plenty of old users are on large value auto-voters. Some to more of them (I think more than that) are continuously posting low quality and quick posts collecting a lot of value, whilst their contributions don't deserve the value, especially compared to the quality posts of new users (and old users who are not on those large value auto-voters).
Auto voters are too lazy to review and adjust their auto votes, and that is the most positive explanation I can give to this.
Back to downvote and scaring new users. In my honest opinion, it is the trending pages and the selected amount of users getting the majority of the rewards that scare new users. In the last 4 to 5 years I have seen so many great content creators come and go because their content was undervalued a lot in comparison to high rewards on low-quality posts.
We need more governance teams, with lots and lots of downvote power. Teams that operate 100% transparent, like Hivewatchers. When taking away the rewards of all crap posts around, we can be confident we'll change the general culture in our community for the good.
I could not disagree with you more, you always focus on rewards when replying to questions about your downvotes. For me, it is more that these downvotes cause a post to be less visible to other users on this platform. That is censorship. Why should whales care if a minnow made more rewards than they should? You got plenty and good for you, the way you come off is that you and other whales are the judge and jury of content on Hive. You know exactly what you are doing by downvoting a post about downvotes, you're poking the beehive.
My solution to accounts who want to play judge and jury of content like this is to create a community-funded counter account although Layer 2 is far more civil and less expensive. An upvote cannot be the answer to downvoting when the value of the vote is not equal. All the counter account would do is counteract a bad downvote to its exact value.
It sounds smug, to say "But that's not the same as suggesting they should earn arbitrarily large rewards. I'm entitled to have a view on that which might be different from those who upvote." You are entitled to your view and to say you couldn't downvote would also be censorship, the smug part is when you say that you don't like when people are making arbitrarily large rewards, but you could post "hi" and make more rewards than a project I worked a month on and every post you do makes large rewards arbitrarily. So if you are doing it what is the problem if a minnow does it?
When a post is made and it reaches a certain value that means that the community has valued this PoB to be worth x amount, yet one account can disagree with the value this content has reached and in doing so they disagree with what the rest of the community valued this content to be. Essentially one vote vetos all the other votes.
If you look at how these large payouts are generated it is almost always the case that the bulk of the rewards comes from one or a few big accounts. Your notion that masses of minnows are all voting for a big reward and then one evil whale comes and takes it all away is not accurate.
Agreed, at the same time you pretend as if your vote is the same as mine or 100 of me for that matter, why should a big account like you care if a small account earned some extra rewards? Why can't you answer that? Again you are hung up on rewards a downvote does not only impact the rewards it impacts who sees this content on Hive, downvoting it can make it less visible so you're hit with the double whammy.
I never once mentioned that a big whale comes in and takes it all way, I said a big whale overrides what the rest of the community aside from the one account downvoting has valued that content to be.
Except that's not true. The rest of the community usually has very little to do with the large rewards. It's usually one or a small number of large accounts doing that. Why do you think it is more legitimate for one large account to suck up a large portion of the reward pool and assign it to one post? That's actually in conflict with a large amount of other smaller reward activity throughout the community (any very large reward takes away from all the smaller ones, since they all come out of the same pool).
There is no coherent reasoning that makes upvotes (which take from other payouts) whether large or small more legitimate than downvotes (which give back to other payouts) whether large or small. It's all just voting.
To be honest I don't even pay attention to whether the account receiving the rewards is large or small, and I don't think it matters. I'm sure it happens both ways. I look at the rewards and whether I think they represent a good use of Hive's reward pool and then express my opinion and prerogative as a stakeholder through voting. When I downvote, the rewards that don't get generated on that post as a result end up going to other posts by other accounts, large and small (but a great many small, in practice).
There is no free lunch on excessive payouts.
do you look at the content or is it all about numbers
I look at the content every time I vote on something. I have no automated votes at this point. Everything is manual using my own eyeballs.
Your still working on the false notion that my upvote is worth the same as your downvote
I never suggested that at all. There are many community members with different stakes. When they choose to vote (up or down) on a post their votes are added up and then the reward is computed and paid out. No one "overrides" anyone else, all the votes are added up.
...try and reconcile that statement with this reality
The @lucylin account .
hahahahahah.
This comment will age really well across the internet ...(And I will be using it).
Do you not understand the piss poor reputation hive has, because of these behaviors?
Probably not, the hive echo chamber doesn't like to let reality intrude.
I would say 'good luck with your authoritarian, commie/technocratic, project'... but that would be a lie.
THIS is the reality ....
The @lucylin account .