Thanks for the reply Dan
I encourage you to conciser what we want for Hive. Do we want it to grow, be a welcoming supportive platform where people are able to grow their Stake? If we achieve that people are far more likely to invite others and invest. What went on with Steemit years ago prevented investors and this is fact.
Lets also think about and take into consideration how moronic the general public is. They tend to blindly follow perceived authority. Black lists look like authority.
As evidence we need look no further than the covid 19 virus. We see all over the world, people going along with perceived authority figures and doing things which are detrimental to their own health such as wearing masks. The reality of this is, we all host a wide variety bacteria and viruses. Now we see many people serving customers in shops, wearing masks all day long, increasing their viral loads and exponentially increasing the risk of becoming seriously ill with every in breath and increase the risk of everyone else around them. The vast majority are morons and blindly follow regardless of how much money they have. Wealth is no indicator of wisdom or general intelligence.
If there is need for black lists at all, I strongly urge you to consider the suggestion, that any blacklisting be done through an open consensus process where everyone interested in such things can have their say.
Thanks again for your response
Actually, my proposal goes beyond open consensus, because I consider blacklisting to potentially be too severe to allow it to be determined by a simple consensus decision (i.e. a single source of truth decided by general agreement).
My proposal is more of an "opt-in" strategy, where each user decides for himself which blacklists he wants a frontend to consider.
This is also the approach I want to take for future reputation/rating systems as well. In the reputation and rating system I'm envisioning, there will be no "single source of truth" decided by general consensus. Instead each individual will get to select whom they want to trust to provide them with reputation information, and they'll be able to weight the significance of those sources. So each user will get custom data based on their own choices.
I am very happy to hear your thoughts on reputation. Indeed, the reason reputation matters at all is because it is subjective, and it is the lack of subjectivity that so reduces it's meaning and makes it susceptible to being simply a commodity on social media.
I believe you are confusing reputation with scoring. It is demonstrable that even quite asocial vertebrates rely on reputation, and the most sociable species are the more dependent they are on scoring reputation. This is because higher sociability has generally promoted centralization, as bees and wasps demonstrate.
However, enabling reputation to be scored by individuals prevents centralization of power, which promotes distribution of power.
I am strongly in favor of societies that feature peers rather than overlords, and distributing reputation scoring is essential to formalizing such society. As it would be difficult to envision our present circumstances resulting in informal society without catastrophic population reduction, which I do not support, I strongly support distributing reputation scoring.