I don't think a centralised blacklist could be added to a blockchain described as decentralised, but witnesses could work it in nonetheless. It would be pretty hard to push for it, though.
The problem is the only solution to many of the problems steem faces are centralized. Until the community has the resources and desire to police itself, it will decay or require centralization in some degree.
Regulation is centralised in nature given the subjectivity of rules, but to create a community with certain basic limits to enforce safety and comfort, it's necessary. I'm not sure how it can be done without hardcoding it into the blockchain.
As you say, the community needs more resources and desire to police itself. There is a lackluster unwillingness to meddle with shady projects.
The ideal solution, also unlikely, is the birth of many measures like your blacklist. People creating bots, stuff like Steemcleaners, to massively influence the quality of the site. The community needs moderators, but decentralisation blocks this in its core. Though it's accomplishable, it's much harder than on any other community.
Do you think blockchain-based centralisation is the best solution to this?
I think it is the best solution considering the near zero community involvement. It’s not best for decentralization but it is the best for getting the done.
Doesn't mean one party can block everyone from even posting in the blockchain either.
It's one thing to flag or deny certain services. That's the purpose of this blacklist. If someone wants to launch a project and they don't want fishy users in their land, they can plug their verifications to this blacklist and it's easy-peasy.
It's another thing to disallow digital presence. Decentralised Freedom of Speech means that anyone can create an account and post whatever they want. The principles by which Steem was created and by which it's publicised make this an essential quality to the blockchain.
Right but, decentralised freedom of speech doesn't mean all's fair because freedom doesn't mean all's fair.. if "you" come here just try to scam someone you don't come to speech, you come to scam/steal
Yeah. Let's make an assumption. Let's say the person who created the blacklist is not themarkymark but someone else, someone without scruples who pretends to be noble. Everyone believes this person and allows them to create a blacklist where they personally plug in those "approved" as spammers and scammers.
The blacklist is inserted into the blockchain. This person then writes a name into the list of someone who's speaking against them (someone like Wikileaks vs. Hillary Clinton). Not a scammer, not a spammer, just someone saying things that are not convenient for a "purpose". Boom, freedom of speech is dead because their posts are "rejected" by the blockchain.
The only possible conciliation measure for this would be to create a consensus system where people "agree" that the person is a scammer or a spammer and does not deserve to post on the blockchain, but that could also be played with if everyone is plugged into the first person's blacklist and they just "approve" whatever they insert into the list and make it global in their own lists. Or if the most influential witnesses all want to play the same game.
It's not about fairness, because I agree with that. It's about who would have the right to decide on other people's right to speak.
We already have flags and warning bots. We have @arcange, who tells people when a commenter under their posts has a scammy link. There's a lot that can be done protect people without taking away the right of accounts to post to the blockchain due to centralised lists.
I repeat, though. I love the blacklist and what it currently does. I'm just arguing against making it a centralised blockchain-based censorship measure.
What I've said "blacklist inside blockchain" of course I mean that blacklist should be approved by witness, like hard forks, etc... Anyone ask you if HF20 is ok to you? But it doesn't come from "someone without scruples who pretends to be noble"
Yeah but those are different. Under HF20, everyone has the same rights, no? Nobody can come and say "@psos is criticising me. Let's not allow @psos to publish to the blockchain". If the top 5 witnesses wanted it, they could probably influence the rest into pushing a blacklist that contained your name in it just because you criticised the wrong person.
I don't think a centralised blacklist could be added to a blockchain described as decentralised, but witnesses could work it in nonetheless. It would be pretty hard to push for it, though.
The problem is the only solution to many of the problems steem faces are centralized. Until the community has the resources and desire to police itself, it will decay or require centralization in some degree.
Totally agreed!
Regulation is centralised in nature given the subjectivity of rules, but to create a community with certain basic limits to enforce safety and comfort, it's necessary. I'm not sure how it can be done without hardcoding it into the blockchain.
As you say, the community needs more resources and desire to police itself. There is a lackluster unwillingness to meddle with shady projects.
The ideal solution, also unlikely, is the birth of many measures like your blacklist. People creating bots, stuff like Steemcleaners, to massively influence the quality of the site. The community needs moderators, but decentralisation blocks this in its core. Though it's accomplishable, it's much harder than on any other community.
Do you think blockchain-based centralisation is the best solution to this?
I think it is the best solution considering the near zero community involvement. It’s not best for decentralization but it is the best for getting the done.
Decentralized doesn't mean all's fair..
Doesn't mean one party can block everyone from even posting in the blockchain either.
It's one thing to flag or deny certain services. That's the purpose of this blacklist. If someone wants to launch a project and they don't want fishy users in their land, they can plug their verifications to this blacklist and it's easy-peasy.
It's another thing to disallow digital presence. Decentralised Freedom of Speech means that anyone can create an account and post whatever they want. The principles by which Steem was created and by which it's publicised make this an essential quality to the blockchain.
Right but, decentralised freedom of speech doesn't mean all's fair because freedom doesn't mean all's fair.. if "you" come here just try to scam someone you don't come to speech, you come to scam/steal
Yeah. Let's make an assumption. Let's say the person who created the blacklist is not themarkymark but someone else, someone without scruples who pretends to be noble. Everyone believes this person and allows them to create a blacklist where they personally plug in those "approved" as spammers and scammers.
The blacklist is inserted into the blockchain. This person then writes a name into the list of someone who's speaking against them (someone like Wikileaks vs. Hillary Clinton). Not a scammer, not a spammer, just someone saying things that are not convenient for a "purpose". Boom, freedom of speech is dead because their posts are "rejected" by the blockchain.
The only possible conciliation measure for this would be to create a consensus system where people "agree" that the person is a scammer or a spammer and does not deserve to post on the blockchain, but that could also be played with if everyone is plugged into the first person's blacklist and they just "approve" whatever they insert into the list and make it global in their own lists. Or if the most influential witnesses all want to play the same game.
It's not about fairness, because I agree with that. It's about who would have the right to decide on other people's right to speak.
We already have flags and warning bots. We have @arcange, who tells people when a commenter under their posts has a scammy link. There's a lot that can be done protect people without taking away the right of accounts to post to the blockchain due to centralised lists.
I repeat, though. I love the blacklist and what it currently does. I'm just arguing against making it a centralised blockchain-based censorship measure.
What I've said "blacklist inside blockchain" of course I mean that blacklist should be approved by witness, like hard forks, etc... Anyone ask you if HF20 is ok to you? But it doesn't come from "someone without scruples who pretends to be noble"
Yeah but those are different. Under HF20, everyone has the same rights, no? Nobody can come and say "@psos is criticising me. Let's not allow @psos to publish to the blockchain". If the top 5 witnesses wanted it, they could probably influence the rest into pushing a blacklist that contained your name in it just because you criticised the wrong person.