I don't want moderators, I want better code logic for down-votes. Moderators become a huge problem as we've seen on youtube, facebook and twitter. I would hate to spread that cancer to steemit.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't want moderators, I want better code logic for down-votes. Moderators become a huge problem as we've seen on youtube, facebook and twitter. I would hate to spread that cancer to steemit.
Yes, totally makes sense.
My suggestion was somewhere in between whereby the community's own self regulating up/down vote process is made more functional. I will always lean more on the side of doing nothing than on censoring and control, since bias is all around and I am regularly (unfairly) censored on FB/G+ etc.
While the situation on Steemit is better than Facebook, for example, in that the posts can be viewed by anyone who desires to - the reality remains that if there were no 'censoring' qualities to the act of hiding a post then there would be no value in the function of hiding a post.
There are so many posts in Steemit that some users will simply glance over hidden posts and assume that the hiding is just. I don't have any figures for it but I think that it is probably true that hidden posts get less views and upvotes as compared to when the same post is made and not hidden.
In my own case, a perfectly valid post that was part of a popular and important series of posts was downvoted and hidden only a few seconds after I posted it, thankfully I recovered it by (ironically) the use of randowhale - a bot.
My post on this specific topic that contains suggestions for improvements, goes into all of this in some depth.
i have no problem with not calling it 'censorship', but if something is hidden it is by definition now not fully available in a published format alongside the other posts. obviously, i don't make posts to steemit for them to be hidden. i personally feel that what i am posting usually will draw enough attention without me needing to add 'mystery' to it by having it hidden. i do though think it is justified to say that hidden posts are 'semi censored' - since they do result in some of the people who would have potentially encountered the material from not encountering it, just as if it was fully censored.
this though, is not the end of the issue, since the author also loses money and reputation due to the downvotes - which is a whole other dimension to the equation.
'published' implies full access alongside other published items. If I publish a book via a publisher, I am not going to accept it being put behind a hidden door in the shop's bookshelf just because someone else decides it should be because they have more money than me.
That's all well and good in theory, but it's not 'the community' as some kind of perfect, altruistic and balanced entity. What is actually occurring is that those with the most money have the capacity to limit the reach of specific posts and publishers with impunity. The decision is currently not based on merit, but rather on wallet size. If 40+ people in the community decide that something should not be hidden, it may make no difference because one single voter with more wallet size disagrees. Democracy doesn't work that way, oligarchy does. Your position here smacks, ironically, of a communist dictator who decrees that 'the people have spoken' when in truth it was actually just one individual speaking who holds an unbalanced amount of power in the system. Yes, it is possible for the rest of the community to rally around those who are unfairly treated, but the system itself contains no specific facility or that and that is why I suggested to include one in my post on the topic.
I am aware that Dan has specifically included some kind of conflict resolution system into EOS, so it is obviously not just me that has a concern - though I don't yet know the details of that.
As already stated, marketing theory and practise makes clear that visibility is king in many cases. Information system theory shows the same in terms of human- computer interaction. The human visual cortex is virtually hardwired in many people to be drawn to shiny things - sad but true.
They do literally lose money since payouts are directly reduced due to downvotes, as I understand - they also get less payout due to less visibility and thus less downvotes. That's fine for validly downvoted posts, but that is not what I am highlighting.
The cancer has spread... unfortunately.
I'd like to see @steemcleaners and @adm close their accounts.
They are only used for abuse on the platform; probably by a very immature and simple minded person, but nonetheless, those accounts do only harm and no good. IMHO of course.