RE: LOW-LIFE DOWNVOTING MEMBERS

[logiczombie]

First of all, no honest person or company would ever develop a system like Steemit has done.

What would be your wish-list of key design features if you had the resources to design your own social-network with exchangeable value-tokens?

Comments

[logiczombie]

Porn is completely from the site, as does Google, Facebook, Instagram, Seeking Alpha, and all other reputable platforms. Allowing porn degrades any platform to the point where most members will simply abandon it. It's just a matter of time.

What enforcement mechanism would you propose?

[logiczombie]

How is flagging superior to downvoting?

I've had pages get flagged by competitors for the sole purpose of sabotaging me.

Even big yo.utubers complain about getting demonetized (even temporarily can be a big deal if it keeps you off the trending and recommended lists) by bogus flags.

[logiczombie]

...until such time as a neutral body reviewed the article to see if in fact should be removed.

There it is. Where can we find one of these mythical "neutral bodies"?

[logiczombie]

Articles cannot be downvoted by others, regardless of reputation (sounds good but we need some enforcement mechanism to remove scams and illicit material).

All votes carry equal weight (this should be a no-brainer, but we would need some sort of automated "proof-of-brain" and protection against people controlling hoards of sock-puppets).

Curator payouts are equally divided among all curators (lowering the minimum payout to 0.001 steem and removing the "timing" bonus would fix this).

Good ideas!

[logiczombie]

"but we need some enforcement mechanism to remove scams and illicit material"

Yes, we would need the ability to actually remove posts, not just hide them.

Who would make such a decision? And how would you mitigate the damage potential of a "rogue mod"?

I heard an interview with a fa.cebuk flag-checker recently, they were paid a fractional wage and worked from the Philippines. They said that they were so overworked and borderline traumatized from viewing all the horrendous flagged content, and under pressure to review 1000 flags a day, that they ended up just clicking "denied" repeatedly on all their cases.

[logiczombie]

Rarely, if ever does such posts get past their respective bots.

Yeah, but that New Zealand shooter, "subscribe to pootiepie" video took them several days to clear out... AND they're literally rollin' in cash-money-dollars.

Yo.utube BY ITSELF is raking in more profit than either VIACOM or COMCAST.

[logiczombie]

Such decisions are easy to make (by anyone) if the parameters for violations are clearly defined.

What are your "clearly defined violations"?

4 minute story about fa.cebook moderators

[logiczombie]

It would also be a good idea to limit memberships to only 1 per person.

This is a non-trivial problem.

Many users have access to hundreds of machines with unique ips and have the scripting resources to automate nearly undetectable sock-puppets.

The one thing they can't fake is steem. So, under the current system, they can't amplify their vote with multiple accounts (well, except for the free steem delegation and (25) rep that each new account automatically gets, which is sort of a problem of its own).

[logiczombie]

All you would need is software which detected both the user's IP address and the computer's hard-drive's serial number, and then match those to the member's account.

Some people have access to hundreds of computers with unique ips and unique hard-drive serial numbers.

Yes, you can reduce the number of accounts operating from one computer (hypothetically anyway), but that's not what I'm talking about.