It is that supposed principles are being constantly contradicted, which are first proclaimed loudly and proudly and then broken with a downvote for not being able to stomach insults or differentiating opinions. On whim.
When I opened my Steemit account it was advertised with "you get paid to blog" and with "free speech", their unique selling points.
However, it cannot credibly advertise itself and later Hive as such, as free speech is prevented here just as it is elsewhere. Not through downvotes per se, but by promoting mainstream content. What you see on trending is what counts and is consumed mostly.
Since no clear set of rules is communicated centrally, there are no clear rules. For example, you have to get to know HW before you know what function it fulfils.
For me, Hive is an example of what happens when you create a space where people who have nothing to do with each other try their hand at politics. Since there are no familial, local or business relationships between them, the only currency is the attention currency. If you're not conjuring up the end of the world (extreme on one side) or drawing a utopia (extreme on the other), you remain a barely read user. Which I do not mind personally (IF I have a steady readership of a handful of people) but that's how online-activity seems to be understood.
Everything else is mediocre entertainment as a matter of fact.
People say that every user has to be a plagiarism/spam police. But the fact is that most people don't want to do that, which is understandable when you put into perspective how much time it takes to do just that.
The ludicrous thing about the situation is that if someone posts spam in large quantities, the payouts first have to be visible in order to be noticed, for example trending. But if they now appear on the trending page, it means that they already have high payouts. I would say that spam usually doesn't trend, but then spam is hard to find. So it's just a coincidence if you come across a spammer account.
I wouldn't downvote a spammer if I come across one, since it cannot be done by just one glimpse and then push a button. So you need a police. Who then reports violation to a mature committee, who then contacts the suspect, who then have a talk, who then clear the case. All of it must be transparent and not behind the scenes, as you rightly pointed out. The payment for the police and the committee must be worth the time and work invested. The documentation of the executives must be well written and thoroughly done by the best standards. The police ought not be the judges, only the ones who refer supposedly spammers and plagiarists to the committee.
Since "spam" isn't crystal clear either, some whales downvote posts that simply have a picture plus a little text as spam. Opinions can be divided here.
The users then complain because countless of them actually have no awareness at all that what they publish maybe regarded as totally unimportant rubbish. Only when you get to know a user do you begin to understand what their "one picture plus two lines" could mean. For example with antisocialist.
But of course, there ARE just rubbish postings who could as well be AI-supported content. One never knows before one does not engage on a one-on-one basis. So I would say people are not payed for their content but for being known (becoming acquainted to each other) through engagement over a longer course of time. It's relational.
If someone is not interested at all in building a relation towards his audience, it can mean (but not for sure) that he gives a damn. But you never know. Sometimes people want to share what they find important in an open space. And, as you say, value free speech more than payout. But it can't be helped, since the payout is in the first place what generates attention. So, free speech is linked to high payouts.
I have often experienced the politicians on this platform (witnesses) saying that they really don't want to debate with every single user, which is "exactly why downvotes and upvotes are distributed". But that's still what they should and are expected to do, as they are perceived as politicians and set themselves up as such.
But if you are in such a mood that you don't really want to have anything to do with the tedious work of a politician because it is supposedly enough to press buttons, you end up with a user base that presses buttons. The whole design is geared towards button-pushing and because of this, witnesses refuse to do anything other than push buttons. They justify it by saying that it saves time and the statement itself is enough for people to find buttons pressed on their post, representing either a thumbs up or a thumbs down. The whole nature of the algorithm is geared towards this.
"Saving time" and automating the very processes in which people actually can come to an understanding towards each other, is an illusion. Time cannot be saved, since conflict cannot be avoided. Avoiding conflict means to push buttons instead of debating.
It's an illusion to think that pushing buttons represent engagement since it doesn't. So, they can be believed in saying that they don't want to debate with every single user. But then, they cannot place a downvote either, if they refuse to talk to that specific user who received their downvote. That is a contradiction. They are expected to invest personal time and arguments. If they don't like it, they cannot be a witness, and should remove themselves from the witness list.
One person cannot talk to many people at the same time, that's true. Each individual can only have a conversation with a handful of people. If you violate this insight, you succumb to the misconception that this truth can be replaced by pressing buttons. It can't.
My goodness you are lucid! I am so glad I get the benefit of your considerations.
Aside from some expectations of witnesses I don't think are mete, I vehemently agree with most every word you have written here, and didn't know I did until you said it.
Hey! You do read my posts! LOL
Gah. This truth sticks in my craw. Nonetheless, it is true, so I'm choking it down. As much as I don't want a 'police', sorting plagiarism and tracking spam takes resources that require dedication mere content consumers aren't providing, and can't. What that means is that HW and Marky are understaffed (and HW is overpaid because of it), and there needs to be - as others have mentioned as well - a formal statement of what is and isn't spam, plagiarism, AI generated content, and so forth, and teams of competent people to serve in the various roles necessary to properly execute policing functions.
I don't know what the procedures have been heretofore, but when scams arise, actual police may legally be required to be informed.
You have substantially changed my perspective on this matter, and I cannot thank you enough for doing so. I hate being wrong, and now that I agree with you I am right again! But, can we have juries of our peers instead of professional committees or judges? I agree we need competent investigation and detection, but there will be matters of judgment, and it seems to me that juries are a strongly justified mechanism for rendering judgment, guilt or innocence, upon presentation of professional investigation and defense by the accused.
Also, once you have institutions, you get corruption. The professional police and investigation committees are going to be infiltrated by scammers seeking to influence investigations, so they can get away with scams. Juries are much more resistant to institutional corruption that judges and police IME.
Thanks!
HaHa! LoL :D - you know that I do.
However you recruit them, this is the weakest point in the matter.
To have non corruptible people, you'd actually would have to refer to the already existing organs outside of hive. But since hive is a globally working sphere, you'd have the executive and judiciary/jury positions according to the location of the involved. But if you have a party from England and one from Venezuela, you have a problem.
In order to meet conflict in a proper way, you need all three: the police to report suspects, a mediator group (arbitrator), and, if mediating does not work, a judge and a jury (while I do not see a jury needed in all cases). You cannot have those people from within the Hive network, since they would be in conflict with their interest. Since they are all stakeholders (getting paid for content creation).
To have outside-people getting involved, you'd actually would need real mediators and real police and real judges since you cannot be any of it, if that is not your education and profession - so people who ARE those pros and do hive as a hobby, for example. Everyone could be a jury member but then you'd have to sit by in a led process, which again, must be led by a professional. And accept HBD for compensation.
Having said all this, I see that almost nobody here is professionally educated in those fields. I am myself a consultant and have a bit experience in mediating, but probably wouldn't want to do it here professionally, since HBD/HP as compensation is not attractive enough.
Maybe, I would do a mediation process once a year for the fun and experience of it. But I would need, before anything, an official mandate from the conflicting parties - and they would have to accept that I probably would have a conflict of interest myself - LoL. There is a certain and strict protocol for mediating a conflict (for very good reasons). If you are interested, I dig in the basement of my steemit blogsite to pull one article out.
I don't see any conflict of interest. Outside Hive every jury member uses fiat. Juries on Hive using it's tokens aren't any more of a conflict of interest.
Seems to me that would cause them to more diligently judge carefully their peers, zealous to both defend the innocent (to make sure they're not judged unfairly themselves if they are falsely accused) as well as get scammers and malicious parties cured or censored. That's the point of juries of peers: folks that have a vested interest in justice, not kangaroo courts or pats on the backside for hazards to the community.
No one would better be able to investigate scams and etc. than Hive members that are competent to use the features of the front ends and platform, and only in cases of actual crimes, like theft and fraud, would outside authorities be necessary to bring in. Frankly, like all insular communities, I'd prefer to handle our business in house.
By the time we get to mediation, we should have a good understanding of the facts of the matter, which a proper adjudication metric should provide appropriate guidelines to a jury to implement.
Personally, I don't think the point of using jurors is for them to be zealous. Rather, I think that because jurors are randomly selected (as I interpret your US law), they are considered a fair representation of the average citizen because they are allowed to have as little to do with the case presented to them as possible.
As I understand it, it would promote a conflict if jury members were, for example, shareholders in the company that a person accused of harming the company. So if by chance a person was selected who worked in the company or held shares in it, they would be excluded from the trial, I think.
Where I live, in the Pacific Northwest, there are company towns, where the entire population of a town works for one company, usually logging companies. They don't have any option to exclude jurors for working for the company the accused also works for (if they're a local). I believe that the reason the jury system works so well is that jurors are indeed zealous to ensure the rights of the accused are respected by the legal process, that the prosecution does effectively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their guilt, or to conserve the rights of the juror by voting not guilty if the prosecution does not meet that bar. People are indeed zealous of the felicity of their village or town, because their family depends on it, and don't want criminals to prey on themselves, or their friends, family, neighbors because that threatens themselves and their family. Juries are motivated to judge truly and justly because of these factors.
You've painted a very specific picture here. You come from the perspective that having a vested interest is THE requirement for judging over a case. Now, this interest is here the locality and familiarity as well as the dependency on a company which feeds the town.
I agree that what I would call determination (not zeal) to judge fairly may take place. IF the logging company IS seen as a valuable enterprise for the whole area. But the question would be, what point of accusation towards a single townsperson could such a company make, arguing that its stability or very existence was in jeopardy?
To be in jeopardy as a company through a damaging act by an individual, I can only imagine that it would be a case of a powerful individual (journalist, for example) who tries to damage the logging companies reputation. Then this journalist must have a lot of power (which usually is not the case if you are acting individually, but collectively). Since badmouthing a company by individuals in private usually does not harm the company in total.
I actually didn't say that it was necessary to juries. What I did say, or meant to say, was that interest improved the ability of juries to judge because it caused their attention to be sharp and focused, and their interest aligns with actual justice.
Anyway, I don't think juries are magical. They certainly reflect their societies, which includes the bad with the good.
Having said all this and having talked to themarkymark in this comment thread (and others before him), I think that the witnesses don't hold themselves accountable for giving rules, since they seem to think that the so called white paper says it all.
Since the analogy of a crab bucket is used, they are more or less saying, that the so called community (each and every single individual crab) rules. That can be translated to "every one rules". But if everyone rules, then no one rules. A place cannot be ruled by everyone.
If that is believed, rules are not there. What IS there is personal individual whim, taste, opportunism, hostility, sympathy, pity.
Since the witnesses say that they cannot give any clear rules because of "decentralization" they will not give out any clear rule to which they (as well as every one else) can be held accountable. Because accountability would be something all actors could refer to. But when you have no reference and no authority, arguing and negotiating becomes futile. Every virtue signaling becomes futile.
Indeed, this is the case.
In the broader context the illusion exists as a phenomena, that there is no authority but one's own, that there is no objectivity but only subjectivity, the individual is condemned to look only at himself as a reference and to neglect perspectives (and facts) from a point of view other than his own, the resultant error turns the many individuals into a righteous mob that believes it can exercise authority based on the individual's presumed sense of justice by means of the sole point of view AND immediate, not thorough, thought.
When the focus is taken away from the power that issues regulations (but not rules), because the issuers no longer feel responsible for their actions, they have rid themselves of any vulnerability.
Although they act as shells for permanent top-down regulation of individual issues (which are available as an inexhaustible pool), they then raise their hands and say: We have placed the issue in your hands, so may you now resolve the conflict with each other (not with us), which we have prepared the ground for but which is beyond our control.
They act like a confectioner who takes an existing successful recipe for sand cakes and says: "From now on, it is forbidden to use flour for sand cakes. Anyone who uses flour anyway and is reported by those who have accepted the use of flour as criminal is confronted with the act of litigation."
And one is no longer allowed to ask how it can be that the pastry chef decides that flour can no longer be used for sand cakes. But this pastry chef points his finger at those who have accepted “flour is forbidden” and says: “Well, if I'm so wrong, why do your accusers think exactly like me?"
Basically, the legislator seem not to care what happens next.
Since he has stripped himself of his own authority - the ability to make careful considerations - to know what is needed or not needed, and to be careful with law-making anyway. He simply enacts one "law" after another because he thinks that is what is expected of him (listening only to the doomsday sayers or the utopian shouters - through the use of the screen).
But this cannot be a reasonable expectation, because a law cannot be responsible for all people and all situations and should only be invoked when there is no other alternative.
But where the legislator pretends that there is no alternative from the outset and that the actors under his alleged authority do not and cannot know anything about alternatives, he is basically saying: I am the law and I know that my law has no alternative. But if you as a people disagree, you must be able to prove it and if you can't prove it, you will be punished/must submit.
I believe this is classically referred to as “proof reversal”.
This means that individuals no longer have to assume their innocence in principle, but rather has been put as principally guilty, and must first prove their innocence.
But to whom? The individual cannot address the legislator directly. One individual has to produce a conflict with some other individual (or company) which proves the regulation wrong (and the "law" as well). Or, the individual turns to a political party which still wants to listen and debate and is in opposition to the ruling party.
Which motivates me full circle to say that "ruling" legislators seem to have turned into an irresponsible bunch who believe in nothing higher than themselves.
So you're saying that jury members would have no conflict whatsoever as stakeholders in a cryptocurrency with the subject matter of what would be negotiated?
I am building up a case in my mind, to follow my thoughts on this...
Let's say you were prosecuting a case in some country where some stranger to the jury was accused of spamming. The company making the accusation would be some local social media platform in Germany, for example a forum for computer games. None of the jury members would have a monetary stake in this company because the company offers no possibility of monetary participation. None of them know the senior operators of this company and have never come into contact, either directly or indirectly.
What would be negotiated would be the accusation of inadmissible spamming on the sites accessible to the public.
What is the likelihood that the individuals on the jury would be guided by a financial interest, because it is said that the operation of the platform suffers financial and reputational damage as a result of spamming? The probability would not be given. The defendant would not have this specific financial motivation either.
The jury would be asked by the accuser to take the interest of the company into account, of course. The defendend would argue that the spamming accusation is not correct, because .... and so on and so forth.
If you now take Hive as that social media platform, where every opened account requires at least some stake, and where participation and engagement with other users is highly dependent on building up stake in order to become more visible, and in order to make ones own votes more attractive, and where the financial stability of the currency is linked to its success, and where participants use downvotes in order to counteract what they think is "damaging" the platform, but nowhere it is defined and can be looked up as a central rule what exactly is to be understood by "damage", that those jury members can come in no conflict with what they think about the matter of spam, the matter of the reward pool, the matter of downvotes themselves?
I would define that as a probability to come into conflict between my interest as a hive user and the interest of another hive user, would you not?
I am so glad that you got it!
People think of themselves that they can be anything in one person:
a police officer, an arbitrator, a judge, a juror AND an ethically mature person. That is impossible. In oder being all of them you'd need 20 years of education and still you could't do it in one person, since that is insane.