The solution is clearly outlined in the Synereo model with invitation protocols. I speak for many besides myself and I clearly pointed out the Steemit design flaw. As far as redesigning Steemit, I think if Steemit doesn't adopt an invitation protocol of some sort, its user base will decline. A re-thinking of Steemit's structure is what I am suggesting. The free market will point to most desirable direction, though. I am pointing out a superior design that is attractive to users. If users' needs are not met, they will look for alternatives. In time, we will understand better which system is desirable.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So you want it so that instead of being a public forum where any user can read and comment on anything, you only interact with people you have 'let in'? That would be a very different type of platform than what we have today. I don't know if the majority of Steemians would even want that. Personally, I like the way it is setup, where you can interact with whoever you want.
There is no way to prevent users from posting comments about anything to the block chain. Even if we establish a protocol to do that, developers can find ways to embed data and subvert it.
Synereo perhaps attempts to restrict data distribution to coteries by not putting all the data on a globally accessible blockchain. But even then, we can't control what others in our coteries choose to do with the data we've shared with them, i.e. they can distribute it outside our coterie. The only plausible way to prevent people from talking about you on a social network is to create obscure identities. Once you are a public figure, then people will talk about you and there is nothing you can do to stop this. We can have a feature in which a blog author offers a recommended block list, but each reader's client program will be free to ignore it.
For those users who are not widely known, then I guess Synereo's local storage of data has the advantage that not all data can be easily found by anyone on a global blockchain. So individual privacy may be improved (at least if not w.r.t. to the NSA).
However it has the disadvantage that new readers can't just discover and browse. I've read that Medium has 20,000 weekly active bloggers serving 25 million readers.
We can simulate Synereo's private coteries on a public global blockchain by employing broadcast encryption.
*to some users. I love that Steemit offers complete transparency. If this was just another social media platform where you could block everyone you disagreed with or anyone who offended and hurt your feelings, well... then I'd go back to Facebook.
But you can mute anyone you don't like. It even actually hides there posts, most of the time now. These features will be refined. I am building a python based native app, currently, and it will have block features, I have some ideas about toting up upvotes to determine a secondary ranking for other users that will work as a 'most trusted' filter/sort order, and I will build a simple blockchain for making groups.
I have also proposed a groups name blockchain system, though, since I have already shared this with the Devs, they may add it to the system core, yet. I also have a design for decentralising a chat system, that works like a lower latency version of Bitmessage, so there is no central server, and nodes pass messages around, and delete them after they expire, some reasonable amount of time like a day or so.
Social features are coming. The rocketchat here, it was put in because it is a feature that is needed, but getting it properly integrating, first the core has to be perfected.
This is also, why I say, and will continue to say, Steem is a DAO. We are its shareholders, according to our SP, we have every opportunity to add whatever we want, in fact, we can even contribute changes to the Blockchain and Website code as well, and if the Devs and most senior witnesses agree, it gets integrated. The Devs aren't at all in the position of dictators, their decisions have to be ratified by the biggest shareholders as well, the Witnesses, and can to some extent be shot down by Whales. This exact decision-making process might change but it will only get better, I'm sure. Ultimately if it goes very wrong, the platform will be forked, rebranded, and the people who go there, will determine whether it succeeds or not, if the other way of running it turns out to be more effective.
But I think @ned and @dantheman are smart guys, and will keep this thing moving until it becomes fully stable and autonomous, and once it is in full release, refinements like this may still emerge later on. The simple fact is that this is like a corporate shareholder board, and this works in regular companies very well. The difference is that anyone can get a tiny share and join the discussion, and how the funds disbursed within the system are spent, or invested, is entirely the choice of the shareholders as they are allocated these resources. The real success of Steem, will be all about people realising that it's a perfect place to invest money, a great system for accounting, a marketing and communication platform, and any profitable activity can be integrated into it, to gain the benefits of a very big pool of resources, and allocated more or less depending on the opinion of the other shareholders.