You have made a very interesting post. As a conservative estimate, probably 99.9% of the users here are unfamiliar with the very earliest days of Steem where we were discussing strategies for aggregating content. Most of us thought nothing of aggregating manually and the debate focused more on how to do efficient aggregation with bots.
Now, since the community has grown to include those from all walks and cultures, we are being imposed by a different set of standards. In contrast to the old standards, which focused on technological efficiency, the new standards focus on an unwritten code of ethics, probably because money is involved.
Many users will think I mean that very early adopters don't have ethics, but that's not the case. We didn't have the financial component so the ethical component that accompanies finances was irrelevant.
One aspect that may be very frustrating to newcomers is that us very early adopters still tend to focus primarily on technological efficiency because that is our nature and is a huge reason why we are the types who become early adopters. We also have a lot of power resulting from our early adopter status. It may be time to re-think how we interface with this new community because we have now become a very visible minority.
That's a smart way to put it. I believe the frustration isn't fueled by "ethics" per se. Most people ethics are whack if you look deep down enough. They don't hold a logical ethical system but a "I feel this is unfair" kind of system.
What happens is this: People are outraged when what they perceive as "bad" content rises to the top.
They feel underappreciated and hurt and tend to fuck off.
In a way, this is illogical too! Because their posts are not all that better and anyway, didn't make any money anywhere else! But the $$ sign changes everything right away.
I don't mind a powerful minority that in time will create a powerful majority, but I think we need to be careful about not alienating new users. How exactly, it's an open discussion but one worth having.
For all of us!
Thank you.
Even very, very interesting conversations about aggregating content are also likely out of the scope of what most in main stream will be reading about and contributing their into input and ideas toward.
The technological efficiency standards approach and bots have their place in social media, in the end social media that works is content created by humans.
"Social media are computer-mediated tools that allow people, companies and other organizations to create, share, or exchange information, career interests,[1] ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media"
The financial component is what makes Steemit.com, especially compelling for an enormous numbers of users/potential new users. To the deeply interested, the underlying technology, the geek aspect, is mind-blowing. To the "masses" it is 99.9% of the time the financial aspect that is mind-blowing. I certainly can not say that it is unethical to try and make money here, one could argue that is whole point of Steemit.com -----> to finally make money for participating in co-creating in the library of human life.
I believe it is very true that many people actually have no idea what plagiarism is and sharing is just so common that even highly educated types may have forgotten the ethics and the rules. Education can help.
After education there will still be willing abusers, especially while the site is very new. For some people the chance to cash out far outweighs the penalty of being chastised and/or expelled from a site that while very cool to you and me, is possibly disposable to them. Damages done to this beautiful site by these types make us cringe and yet the very willing offender likely couldn't care less.
Decidedly the early adopters and others with large influence here do ultimately have a serious role to play in this issue with you weighty nature. I don't know what is best myself, I do wish you well and will chime in when I have something intended to be meaningful to say.
I wish those conversations/discussions were easier to find, they'd be interesting reads.
In this new unwritten code of ethics, I propose one of the pillars is: the content that the community creates is sacred. It's one simple rule that's always worked for me while managing content based communities.
If you live by this rule, there is no room for error and you need to be certain before you claim something doesn't belong or isn't real. Bots would need to follow this ideal as well, and only respond if they are absolutely positive it violates the code. The content itself needs to be "innocent until proven guilty", and not punished before the evidence is 100% solid. Treating content with the utmost dignity should be the #1 goal, otherwise we will end up alienating content creators, which harms growth to the community.
But... when content is absolutely proven to violate a copyright violation, be completely fake, or violate any of the other ethics/standards - the gloves come off.
Your posts in this thread are awesome. This is concise and true and should guide our approach here:
And this too
This is a very reasonable response.
Early adopters have indeed become a minority in number, but not in power, and with power comes responsibility.
The code of ethics idea is definitely what we need next, but I think it should be written, because unwritten law is subject to subjective interpretations.
Thank you for your support!