You can design and create, and build the most wonderful place in the world. But it takes people to make the dream a reality.
Walt Disney
One of the questions I have always had here is whether technical people can make a social environment, especially one that is monetarily incentivized. In general, technical people on average aren't know for their social abilities yet, they are often the ones building the social platform environments. However, as we can see with the centralized platforms of Facebook and the like, they aren't engineered for social interaction rather, they are created for monetization and data mining, the code isn't to improve quality of life but to improve bottom lines of shareholders. There may be nothing wrong with this approach but, is it considered social?
People talk about misaligned incentives here and that is true however, it is all dependent on what one is incentivized as to how one sees the platform. Some see it as a way to earn revenue, a way to interact, get thoughts out, discuss complicated topics, protect themselves from censorship or just have a little fun. There are many reasons and ways to be part of the Steem environment and, we all have expectations about how it should operate.
Expectations are assumptions based on our past experience. We model/imagine what we think the future is going to become using what we know (whether aware or not) to create a perspective and once we make the effort, we assume that we are right. Even if we know we have room for error, we will still predict that the view we have created is accurate and when it happens, we are happy and if it doesn't, disappointed. This doesn't actually mean what we predict has to be a positive, just that our modelling skills were good.
The problem is that we all have different past experiences and because of this, what we think the future is going to look like is going to potentially vary greatly based on what we know or, what we think we know. For the most part, we are all skilled at something and all have an understanding of some areas which means these become core parts of our predictive modelling toolkit. What tends to happen though is it overpowers and provides a confidence level higher than warranted as all of the things we haven't considered get left out of the prediction. We feel right yet have only included a narrow view.
The more complex the system, the higher the chance that we have not only missed including influencing factors but, we there is also a higher chance for various components and linkages to break or, function incorrectly. Every system is flawed no matter how good the design and, every change, however slight, creates a host of interactions with many being unintended. Cause and effect consequences that may not have been entirely seen before hand or, the severity of the implications may not have been established accurately.
We see this here often enough as every change to the system means all users are somehow affected with opportunities granted some while others may lose some or, be put in a position they do not want to take or make certain decisions. No matter the changes, there are going to be implications, seen and unseen with varying degrees of effect. On Steem, most of the changes to the platform are made from the perspective of how Steem itself interacts through the system and looks to tweak performance, distribution and interaction with the tokens.
This makes sense due to the types of people who are creating the system as for them, this is their core competence and where their interests lay. Even if they want to create a community of engaged users who create quality content that is both worthy of reward and attractive to other users, they may not have the tools at their disposal or, the approach is overshadowed by their strengths.
The thing that I see (based on my own experience and flawed modelling) is that no matter how good the platform performs, it is still going to require a community with a culture that incentivizes the behaviors we want to in general, have here. This is a societal question, not a technical one and even though incentives can be tweaked to encourage certain behaviors, no technical change is going to be able to predict and provide for positive actions, nor counteract the wide range of what would be considered negative. This is especially true in a decentralized environment where a lack of censorship and increased anonymity are encouraged.
What I like about Steem is that we are all part of the discourse, all able to have a vice if we choose and even though we may not be able to affect everything as we see fit, we can openly discuss, disagree, combine thoughts and perhaps very slowly, affect the environment to improve the culture within it. As the platform progresses, the do what you want possibility will likely remain but, it isn't likely to be culturally adopted as people will adjust their behaviors to benefit themselves.
For some, this means maximizing their financial returns through voteselling, delegation, selfvoting or producing the absolute best content they can and hope that someone recognizes it as valuable. For others, they look to build a network, engage, discuss, comment, create apps and communities and support content producers. Is there a right way to Steem? Well, it depends if you want to be here long term or not because some actions lead to a long future, some a shorter one. It won't be the code that decides if this works or not, it will be community.
No matter who you are here, everyone has some effect on the way the community operates. Some do a brilliant job of engaging users, others distributing value and many, maximizing their individual returns. Many take a hybrid approach too where there is some level of mutual benefit where there is give and take.
Some say they can't find good content here, you are looking in the wrong place. Some say there is no community here, you are spending time with the wrong people. Some say the system is broken, all systems are broken. What makes content is us, the community is us, the ones to improve the system is us. Technical solutions are great but they can only take us so far, at some point, it is the engaged public that must take the reigns and steer the course of the community itself.
We all have expectations about how it should look and how it should operate but how many of us are wiling to make changes that will be detrimental to us directly? For the most part the changes will benefit our goals, not necessarily everyone's goals. This is why the system will improve as it continues to decentralize further and create pockets of content and interaction that is tailored more toward individuals than the mass. What will connect us is the Steem infrastructure below.
What we create and more importantly how we use it, is up to us.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
Refreshing to find such an important sentiment expounded so simply. There is a tendency to hypermoralize everything in modern society, whose positive aspect is the awakening of many to an idea of true ethics as opposed to narrow survivalistic self-serving. The negative aspect is a guilt-ridden, anger-stricken populace always pointing the finger and succumbing to the allure of elitism. We need more appreciation for different types of folks and less of the blame game.
We must continue day after day to escape from ways of thinking that trap us in dead-end, stagnant conclusions. It is necessary to remain vigilant regarding this because the call of creature comforts is loud, indeed. It is generally more comfortable to remain trapped in a shallow way of being than to expand and truly increase our level of awareness. Yet, it is so wonderfully rewarding at the same time.
Steem on, my friend, and thanks for the food for thought. :-)
We want to experience some freedom but, we also want a safety net provided for us in case we fail. In general, that net is offered by an authority at a premium cost somewhere, whether financially, ethically, morally, privacy. At least here we have a chance to somewhat build our own systems and safety nets to support each other without forcing conformity. Even if we never full make it, like you said, it is rewarding nonetheless. :)
Hi @tarazkp! We are @steem-ua, a new Steem dApp, computing UserAuthority for all accounts on Steem. Starting from the witnesses, UA propagates from user to user based on its followers until equilibirum is reached. We are currently in test modus upvoting quality contributions with a high UA value (UA_author + UA_post)! Your UA_post value is 6.813.
I still believe that Mark truly wants to make the world a better and a better connected place.
But at some point money, and especially fiduciary duties and the subsequent organigram of the org, took the overhand. He himself may actually still suffer from “Chunnel vision” and may still be slightly naive in his thinking, as also shown in his public performances in recent times.
The CEO matters but as [not that many] know the day-to-day impact of other C-level and higher management members is much more influential on many things experienced.
Great post otherwise. Any platform with a social angle is only as good as we want to make it for ourselves. We can not expect a platform to carry and totally fulfill all our wishes or wants. Once everyone understands that, then we can actually constructively contribute to create the community we want to be or at least we want to dedicate time in/with.
Thanks. On my phone now and as you know, I am no wizard 🙂
Yes. It is the centralized platform's job to meet fiduciary duties of shareholders and the like, here it is the communities. That is what makes this place pretty interesting financially isn't it as we are both consumer and direct distributor of the value created?
I try to create good content regularly. Art and music. They're my passions. I'm here to escape the harsh algorithms on other social networks, and to slowly and steadily build a following and the icing on top is earning some income just for posting here, even when people don't buy any of my art from me.
Despite the view sometimes, it is nice to have an unfiltered experience and see what might normally be algorithm-ed out. Building a solid following and the earning a little will have large effects later I believe.
Most of the bigger platforms like Facebook are just meant to provide monetary gains to the founder and employees but Steem is one such gem which is beneficial to the common users as well and it pays rewards for those creating good content. I know this platform is still in BETA but with time, we will see a lot of more positive changes and interaction.
THe thing with having a company with shareholders is that they have a duty to satisfy them. The customers often take a backseat though as the shareholders are never satisfied with their returns, each want to increase the gain next year. This makes it hard to invest in infrastructure, let alone wear the cost of customer first.
If I am being honest with myself, and everyone here, I first started Steemit for the extra cash. And that's still true to point but it is also true that some of the blogs I post I do so because I genuinely want to add value to the steem block chain and to the members who might read my post. Now if my post do add value of not is up to the consumer.
Most people had some desire to monetize their activity when they came to Steemit. Otherwise, why not just use Facebook? Yet many are dishonest about these motivations because they want to portray themselves as above such "base motives." In fact, what is there to be ashamed of in the desire to be rewarded for one's investment of time, energy, and money?
I agree with you that it is quite exciting to know that all the contents of our interactions here will be preserved forever. No one can delete the STEEM blockchain, which might seem trivial to those that are not early adopters. However most of us that are active here know how revolutionary something so simple-sounding is.
There is nothing wrong with earning, money/value is a tool. Some collect a toolset to display, some use their tools to build empires or huts in the forest. In my opinion, although not guaranteed, there is no problem working hoping for reward and there is no shame to be rewarded for real efforts.
Some comments I have seen recently people seem to think the platform is moving more towards centralization (HF20) and what benefits those at the top then moving further towards decentralization....which I was never under the impression they were decentralized to begin with.
It depends how you define it I guess but without examples of the comments, I can't comment much.
One that was easy to recall what thread it was on because I read it last night, you'll have to scroll down to Anthonyadavisii comment.
https://steemit.com/bidbots/@scottcbusiness/oddup515#@sunlit7/re-scottcbusiness-oddup515-20180823t084734240z
There's been others. Many people aren't happy with the new HF20. He may have more then one comment on that thread. You'll have to search out where he said he thinks it going more centralized.
People are worried aboit the 1.2 Steem dust amount issue but, I think it will be largely anon-event and go unnoticed by the vast majority of users as it will change other dynamics that make their positions more visible too. We'll see but all in all, HF20 should make a few improvements and harm less. There are always surprises though.
Dustsweeper comes in and upvotes my dust, I don't know if they will adjust when HF20 comes along or call it quits. I may have to buy some steem to stay ahead of the 120 or 140 threshold you mentioned. Time will tell but I just don't see how this helps people coming onto the platform and retaining them.