I've always treated this place like the public internet. In public, there's to be no expectation of privacy.
Here we have a name rather than a body. Seeing my name here and these words is much like walking past a crowd of people and overhearing a conversation. One can chime in if they want or they can keep going.
In public, as you walk along, maybe you'll drop a few coins in busker's guitar case. People see that. They don't know who you are, but they see you and your actions. There's nothing to hide and no reason to hide it. People might see me pay an establishment for a few drinks or a meal. People might see me rob a bank. If I was invisible, I could rob all the banks, all the shops, all the people. Who would know?
The public is the biggest social network in the world. I'd consider modeling this platform around that, which for the most part, it is.
The public internet doesn't pay you new coins out of thin air to do anything. It isn't the same problem space.
Maybe not, but maybe it does now.
Being pioneers is hard...
I certainly first came in seeing the value of a totally transparent social network, for reasons that it can be very valuable for anyone who wants to be valued based on their honesty and integrity, ie, anyone can check whatever you've communicated on the chain, even the ones edited out. However I kinda find there's little network "memory" to make that work. For the most part, one can still easily get away I think, especially considering the effect of upvotes. There's also another side of users wishing to have at least some control over their privacy (think about some crazy stalker ex).
But okay, let's remain with the current setup (decentralized or not) and say if we just anonymize downvotes (maybe kinda like letting ppl wear masks), would that alone break this "public space" thing?
Maybe we also need a home here, where we can go, to enjoy our privacy, and invite guests or kick them out if they're acting drunk and putting ham in the fish tank again.
Do we need either, or? One thing or the other? Wouldn't there be more potential in having the best of both worlds?
I'm thinking about this anonymous downvotes stuff and my mind keeps travelling to something like being blindsided by some anti-social menace of a drive-by shooter then waking up in the hospital with most of my blood missing, not knowing what happened. This society would be full of cold cases. It could end up being like a plague, posts dropping left and right, and nobody knows the cause or the cure.
Maybe the rights of a voter could be revoked by a set of guidelines enforced by a panel of judges if the behavior of that individual is deemed unfit for this society? We're free to create our own society here. Just because billionaires who like to start wars and sell weapons to both sides exist on the planet, that doesn't necessarily mean we need to cater to that element of society here?
You are one of the last voices of reason on this platform.
There's still plenty of reasonable people here though, but I do realize the place can be frustrating at times.
Imagine telling the busker his music sucks and he needs you to take back some of those coins.
I'd watch that video.
It would be a good analogy if flaggers got to keep the coins.
That doesn't happen to buskers though. That happens to street hustling con artists who are not homeless, yet dress the part, make a sign, appear to be desperate, place many coins in a cup to make it appear as if people have been giving them change, then holding that cup out asking for more, as they sit there making it look like they're doing nothing.
The busker is actually working, providing entertainment, asking for nothing. Nobody 'downvotes' that here or in life.
If someone busts a fraud, that's life if they lose out.
Nobody likes a liar.
If your word is no good, you are no good, imo.
And that's life. I kind of like to know who it was that ran by and punched me in the face as well.
I might have to eat those words now, unfortunately. The artist just got blasted, and for no apparent reason...
Lol, and by a guy that creates sock puppets with known names and reposts their content making us think those folks are really here.
I was able to explain myself and found out he can be reasonable. Problem solved. The absolute last thing I want to see is the artists walking on eggshells here. I won't have to eat the words now. Civilized discourse for the win.
I'm getting told we are bleeding to death, too much is going to the exchanges.
The folks doing it have no intention of stopping.
Any ideas?
It would be a good analogy if people gave the coins out of their own pocket (indeed, I'm a fan of tipping functionality). That's not the case with upvotes/downvotes, at least not as ever implemented on Steem.
If I can selfvote the coins to me, but I choose to vote them to somebody else, haven't I taken money out of my own pocket?
Isn't that the line of reasoning used by the 'it's my stake' crowd?
I still favor the n2 and the self discipline required for it to work.
As long as the inflation gets voted to sellers the price drops, eh?
Tipping doesn't work among the scavengers of scarcity, apparently.
Only people that have worked for tips really give them.
You can't, though, because others can downvote. Even the amount isn't set (exactly) only by your vote but by others votes on the rest of the pool. With n^2 the latter is even more true in practice (because highly concentrated votes elsewhere can take a LOT from the pool and significant reduce your self-vote payout).
The pool is a shared resource.
I see buskers getting tips all the time. I've seen tips work in social media crypto communities when markets aren't down 70-90% and people actually feel like they have something to give away. Not so much recently, but maybe that is better than spewing out lots of coins to inflation regardless of market conditions?