I think it is less a matter of censoring (i.e. making "undesireable" information UNavailable), and more a matter of minimizing (i.e. making "undesireable" information less visible while still being available). I like your analogy about votes being market signals. Some market players have the ability to generate stronger signals than others. A whale has a much higher voting weight than the average steemer, even if that whale decides to scale down their vote by lowering the percentage. For example, my vote has a weight of 6,516, but @dantheman has a weight of 214,532,135 -- so only if @dantheman were to adjust his voting percent to 0.003% would my vote be worth the same as his.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
But why not give a clear statement to give downvote someone, if indeed he is the pope is large, then cherish reputation of people who are already struggling to provide and participate in community steemit, comfort for more users to not carelessly say, a lot of things to give warning for it, without having to give downvote arbitrarily just because he was a pope, telling remove any posting or posting comments on other people could be right, @goodluckcanuck .. !!!
No disrespect, but I had trouble parsing exactly what you are trying to say. I am not saying that this imbalance of power is unfair -- I was simply making the observation about how much difference in power there really is between Whales and Minnows. I am not going to down-vote a post because I don't care for the article, subject, or perspective. I would reserve down-votes for posts that I feel are damaging to an individual or to the community as a whole.
On another note, I have been getting a feeling lately that the only strongly valued content on here relates to steem. I am not sure how sustainable this ecosystem will be in the long run if this continues. People writing original non-steem content will get discouraged and move on to other platforms. Right now, I think the rules are as follows:
The first rule of steemit is: you talk only about steemit.
The second rule of steemit is: you talk ONLY about steemit!
Third rule of steemit: if someone writes original content about food, science, or sports, the post is over.
Fourth rule: only steemit and travel posts are allowed to trend
Yeah, and in that case, it's up to YOU to find fun articles about science or philosophy or food or whatever, and upvote it! We're in this together, and I'm on Steemit for the long-term. I'm gonna have fun here, and make this a community.
This means I have to put making money as a secondary objective.
The number one goal is to have fun making friends and sharing ideas.
Upvote this post if you agree! ;)
It might be true that the most valued posts right now are about Steemit, but this is to be expected since the majority of users, especially the one's with the most Steem Power, are mostly interested in Steemit. I think this will change over the course of the next year as more people become aware of the platform. Give it some time. I think we'll see an evolution happen over time where other groups will catch on to it and start upvoting each others posts. I remember when Twitter first came out, it seemed like the only people using it were trying to sell something and I thought, there was no way it could last if the only thing you see on Twitter is a bunch of spammy advertising. There is still a lot of garbage and advertising on Twitter but it seems to have established itself as more than just that now.
Don't get me wrong here, folks: I have voted for (and will continue to vote for) posts about steemit. I have nothing against the subject, and there are tons of really good articles on the subject. That said, there is also lots of good material on other subjects that simply gets lots in the noise. That's all I am getting at.