I am glad that someone decided to write a post about this and I admire the guts it took to write. I have been involved with this platform since Jan 2018, and downvoting has long been one of my concerns especially when powerful accounts are doing the downvoting. Hive is supposed to be a platform in which users' content is not censored in any way, the kind of downvoting that @smooth is doing violates the idea of a DPoS blockchain community and is a form of censorship in my opinion. What is preventing any powerful account from running rampant and downvoting content just for the heck of it? It blows my mind why anyone would be downvoting other users' content like this. Doesn't this account clearly state that they do not even dislike the content they are downvoting...isn't that the exact opposite of what the downvote is supposed to be used for? I am often a humble person, a wise man once said that "in order to not feel like shit you have to keep your head above all the bullshit" but to be frank, this downvoting thing pisses me the fuck off, and I'm sick of being quiet about it. Let's be real this is why we left Steemit and built Hive so we didn't have to deal with myopic pompous shills swinging their wallets around. It gives off a sense of hierarchy and classism like these accounts I'm downvoting are mere peasants and I'm gonna squish them with my whale blubber, Nah, what you're going to do is start a revolt. What if we created a counter account to these actions pump it up and just counteract everything this whale and other whales who chose to do this, after all, who does the ninja mined stake belong to in the end. I will go down with my battleship for this issue because it has bothered me that long and I don't think Hive will be able to remain uncensored if powerful accounts decide to downvote content for no logical reason.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thank you @wedacoalition, and yes, this power abuse has been going on a long time and needs to be resisted if we are to preserve censorship-free platform and grow the blockchain user base. I like your idea of building an account to counteract these downvotes with upvotes, but not sure how we could get enough hive and delegated hive power into an account that would make a difference, even a $10 counter vote would take a crapload of hive power. Others have already mentioned this, so there are plenty out there who wish to do what they can to counteract this insanity. I don't have the time to network on here to make such an idea come together, but I would certainly support and help as much as I could to anyone who does. I suspect that if we could get an account going to counter these illogical votes that seem to clearly target certain content and do so without leaving comments to explain why they left the downvote (and this is not the only whale doing this), then volunteers would begging to come forward to delegate hive power, and it would naturally grow on its own without much effort as there's enough who are sick and tired of this and ready to fight back. Certainly more downvotes against the downvoters is not the solution, just an attempt to help restore some of the diminished rewards. Even if it didn't counter the downvotes much in the way of total reward payouts, I suspect it would do much in raising awareness of such downvote behavior.
We need to network with @ultravioletmag who has proposed this same concept, and see what we can do to make it a reality. @offgridlife, @crystalhuman, @johnvibes, @informationwar, @truthforce, @thoughts-in-time, @logiczombie, @freezepeach, @r0nd0n all may potentially also be interested in helping out with such a project, as well as the plethora of users who have been targeted, including @kennyskitchen, @dbroze, @edicted, @naturalmedicine, and so many others.
If the freeze peach service became active on Hive, I'd throw some delegation that way, to the best of my knowledge it went out of service at the time of the Steem fork.
I totally agree, maybe we can get enough of us together to make an account to counter some of these downvotes. If it is their 'right' to downvote, it is certainly our right to counter downvotes, right?
Thanks again for the thoughtful comment and on another note, thank you for all the good work you do exposing Yemen genocide, maybe soon our work will pay off in the form of no more US bombs being dropped on innocent children and wedding gatherings in our names by the royal Saudi war criminals day after day after day after day.
ALGORAND.
if something gets flagged, then an alert goes to a RANDOM SAMPLE of 100 accounts. If an account fails to respond in 24 hours, their option is forfeit and their option goes to another random account.
60 of these delegates vote on whether to remove the flagged content (in exchange for some compensation in ALGORAND) with a bonus for voting with the majority (if there is a majority of at least 60 votes).
if there's a 59/41 split,the content remains unaffected.
tag @freezepeach
Hey logic, wanted to let you know that we will have a place for people to go soon, keep on the look out for an announcement post in the next 4 or 5 weeks(SOON TM).
NICE.
Hey hey, we will have a place for us to go SOON(TM). Keep on the look out ;) And we will have some decently high HP of support as well.
As always, you can delegate to @informationwar or follow our curation trail on hive.vote
Currently the IW trail + those who upvote follow via other services can upvote a post by up to 10 USD at times. We have more stuff that is going to be coming on board and will be a lot higher.
I am ignorant on how to delegate hive power and have been meaning to ask, as I want to delegate hive power to informationwar. I'm sure it is simple, but if you can give me the breakdown or a link to directions, I would like to do that, have been meaning to for some time now... THANK YOU in advance @truthforce, and pardon my ignorance.
If you login to your hive.blog wallet and click on HP theres a drop down menu to delegate. Or join the curation trail on hive.vote our trail is called informationwar
Hey Jason,
I don't know if it helps anything but I spoke with a dev from peakd and suggested a new idea that will help ease the friction between content creators and big accounts who downvote to balance out rewards. Hive has a rewards pool when one post if a post is doing too well a downvote is used to help balance out the rewards or the reward pool would be emptied by the first 100 users to post that day. I don't know if you remember flag wars but this has been an issue for a long time.
My idea is to inform users why their content is being downvoted so when you get a downvote an auto message or memo is sent explaining why balancing out rewards is a good thing that helps the platform grow, users should be told that this big account didnt downvote their content because they think its wrong or bad it just helps make sure rewards are more evenly dispersed. The point that I brought up to asgarth was that what these big accounts forget about is that a downvote can make a post less visible, I believe that no content should be given less visibility on this platform.
I dunno if my solution helps you or eases this tension, but I hope it will help people understand what is happening better and why.
-Joziah
Thank you, this would certainly help, but my issue with this is that certain accounts are clearly disagreeing with high rewards only in some cases, often directed at independent voices and dissident opinions, while at the very same time not doing anything to use their power to upvote vastly under-rewarded content, leading many to believe that it really isn't about helping even out distribution of rewards or helping Hive grow but about subjectively choosing which types of posts 'deserve' high payouts and which ones don't, with even how high is too high of rewards being entirely subjective. I would also propose that a manual message must be attached to the downvotes rather than just an auto-vote so people could get a personalized reason as to what brought about the big downvote. I think at least smooth never brings a post down to zero to leave visibility in tact, so I can recognize the good in that, but overall, I think the best way to balance out rewards is to hunt for under-rewarded content to support rather than over-rewarded content to downvote. Especially considering there are many other posts getting higher payouts that these whales will not only not downvote, but also upvote. It makes me think that balancing out rewards is really not the issue here, but is used as an excuse to police rewards of content they don't like. I can't prove that, but vote pattern strongly supports my theory, and the fact remains this user in particular goes around giving many downvotes while rarely upvoting anything but posts that are raising money for his own personal project. It all seems a bit disingenuous, non-transparent and tyrannical to me. Smooth has refused to clearly outline how he determines downvotes, so we can never know, it's all very subjective and leaves users confused as to why some high payout posts are never dinged for the greater good while others with certain polictical leanings are over and over again. I think you get my drift.
Thanks again for the comment, and for taking action, hopefully we can all become more aware of such patterns and workings of the blockchain, and use what we have learned for the betterment of all.
I don't get the same sense that you have that there is a powerful account that has an issue with dissenting opinions, I have been a truth-teller for a long time, and I have found a home here where I feel I am free to speak my mind, Gab and other platforms have tried to do this but when you think of it none of them are like Hive.
Smooth disagreeing with your reward payout is his right, as much as we might not like it, Smooth is his own account and doesn't owe anything to anyone. I told Smooth myself that his answers to why he does this are only fueling the flames. I said it was the main reason I don't support their proposals. His reply was to basically say that we content creators are very needy and whiney and we need to realize that we aren't the only people who matter and I told him without content creators Hive would be like github just a buncha devs sharing code. I think me and Smooth are friends :)
I spoke with asgarth and others that this gives off a sense of hierarchy that is very off-putting to independent journalists and writers. Please know that the best part of this community is that when you bring up issues like this the community hears you, I assure you that you are being heard and this downvoting issue has long been debated and I think it is time the community should try to come to a consensus on this.
Thank you again for putting this out there and I am making it my personal mission to try and reach a solution to this issue. I joined a few months before you and if you look into my work we write about similar things, it broke my heart to read that you felt like you were being targeted, your account and accounts like yours are vital to the success of Hive.
Thank you so much Joziah, I think you are right about Hive being better than most. If you have not been on the receiving end of habitual downvotes, be grateful, as many of us have, been going on since Steem days, on and off, different users, comes in waves it seems. Maybe this Smooth business is all about reward adjustment, but there are definitely powerful accounts who target politically incorrect content, maybe not smooth, but definitely altleft, it is habitual and very clear pattern for altleft and I do not think has anything to do with disagreement over rewards whatsoever.
For example, I have had 7 research-based posts in a row now downvoted, so hard to not see it as a pattern targeting me (which if so, I take as a compliment that I am ruffling feathers with the content of my posts), particularly when I go look at the users casting the downvotes doing the same to many others in the truth / independent journalist /conspiracy community. I saw smooth had repeatedly downvoted so many fellow independent researchers I support on here, it seems like pattern to me with him, but definitely is with altleft.
Your conversation with Smooth made me laugh, I have intentionally held my tongue regarding my opinions on downvotes for the duration of my stay here, so I'm not among those who typically complain about these things, but when I saw I was far from alone and that many are leaving because of such downvote patterns, I couldn't stay silent any longer. I am far more concerned about the bigger picture and ethics of downvoting over reward disagreement in general than any amount of personal rewards being diminished, as I often get good rewards anyway, and this was never about the money for me, but a free speech platform and building community.
You may not know, but I came here to what was originally Steemit because I was deplatformed on YouTube for my videos challenging the official narrative of the Parkland 'shooting' and pointing out lies about that official narrative, videos that had for the first time in my life gotten me a following of people who appreciated my content, so it is nice to have built up a solid following again here and to have met many like yourself that I probably would have never discovered apart from that censorship experience. So despite the frustrations of that initial censorship, I'm still thankful as it has helped greatly expand the independent researchers I follow and whose work I am now aware of and shown me the futility of fighting Big Tech censorship on their own platforms. I don't take Smooth downvotes personally, and as demoralizing as it initially is to be on the receiving end of such a massive downvote, I am not bitter and have already learned much from the experience.
Thank you so much for caring and taking time to talk the devs, I'm very glad the issue is finally getting their ear, the many people who see this as an issue appreciate any debate on the issue our relatively small voices garner, no matter what change comes about. I think anytime so much power lies in the hands of so few, such as power to decide how much users should or should not be rewarded, is a ticket for disaster, corruption and abuse of power. As the old adage goes, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those with the power obviously believe they have the right to make such choices due to their investment, and to some degree I suppose they are right. To find a happy balance and particularly to ensure a censorship-free experience is of paramount importance.
This is why I join Hive https://peakd.com/hive/@wedacoalition/why-content-creators-should-use-the-hive-blockchain, but it is very similar to why you did and why I built wedacoalition.org
see you around friend!
This idea has been proposed in the past, and there was a general consensus at one point, that the person flagging the content should be responsible for giving a reason for their flag. After all, if they have the time and energy (and a good reason for it) to flag a post, it shouldn't be that difficult to show a little courtesy by leaving their own comment. Otherwise, it leaves one with some serious doubt about the true intentions in the first place.
yes peakd devs talk about adding this automatically
Yes, but how would this be added automatically? There is not always one reason for someone applying a flag to a users content. And if you are the target of malicious flags for other reasons than "over-rewarding", then the flagger only has an incentive to lie about the real reason for it. This is how it has been for the longest time on both steem/hive. I have been around and seen this behaviour from the beginning and people don't give an honest reason a lot of the time, or no reason at all. It can also be a whack-a-mole game of deception, for those that control a large amount of stake from multiple accounts. Not all of these accounts earned their stake, if you understand some of the original history of steem.
I never signed up to steemit with the intention of becoming a blogger. It had never crossed my mind. I only signed up to steemit to read content from a few authors I had great respect for that were on this platform (because I didn't realise you could read it without signing up at the time lol). Anyway, I (and a few others) were deliberately targeted for the political opinions of our comments, after only a shot time of being active on a few authors blogs. It was clear as day, that it was deliberate and targeted.
It was actually one of the very first things I blogged about (and how I came across what has now transformed into the deepdives community, and it was retracting my enthusiasm for a so-called free speech platform. Our comments and interactions were being silenced, and for a specific reason. It was not about rewards, as the rewards for making comments were minimal to say the least. Also had no stake to speak of, being a new account (keeping in mind that I really didn't know much about how the platform worked at the time).
https://peakd.com/steemit/@palikari123/targeted-flagging-of-posts-and-comments-from-accounts-heather2000-and-thinkingtime
https://peakd.com/steemit/@palikari123/here-we-go-again-nine-days-later-and-more-mass-flagging
To me, this is what its mostly about . It sucks to have your rewards clipped , but it sucks even more to have your voice/opinion silenced/downgraded by accounts who have ulterior motives other than just over-rewarding. There is a pattern to some of the "over-rewarding" flags, that will never be admitted to. But what really turned me off this place, was the attitude of some of the so-called influencers on here (which I had been aware of for a ling time, and it only got worse as time went by). The attitude that they are superior to everyone else, and that they should have the right to control what information is seen by other users. They still refuse to call this censorship, which is absurd.
I agree with you, and I have brought this up in discord, you make very valid points and they are some of the same points I brought up, but you have obviously been contemplating this for a long so forgive me if I don't know all the nuances of the debate. I made my feelings known in a recent post, downvoting equals censorship, but isn't not allowing downvotes also censorship? Decentralization goes both ways. If there are left-wing accounts on here systematically flagging content they don't agree with, that it is their right as users of this platform to do so. Just because it is their right doesn't make it morally right, it's wrong and a myopic use of the downvote.
I do not fully understand this issue to fully answer everything you mentioned but you have my word that I am being very vocal about this issue in hopes to find a solution. Ecosystems have to be balanced or else they collapse, the feeling that you have and other accounts have that they are being targeted disgusts me. I came to what was then Steemit to remove myself from cancel culture and politically correct swarms and I was tired of my hard work being cut down to shit. I have never been a victim of these downvotes that I know of but as a community, we have to hash this out.
One of the points I brought up in discord is what is to stop a huge entity like google from making a hive account and then just shitting on the content they don't agree with? The answer was that there would be a mutiny. There should be a mutiny right now. The last thing a decentralized platform need is a sense of hierarchy. If you are on discord I would love to chat with you on there bc I would like to find out all the info I can about this.
No need for any forgiveness lol. We are all here to learn from each others experiences. I certainly can't say I understand all of the pieces of the puzzle, but maybe as a community we can create a solution to find some resolution for all parties involved.
If communities are to work as they were intended, then we should be able to decide for ourselves what is overrewarded or spam etc etc. The best way to do that, is simply to not upvote that content or have those accounts muted in extreme cases of obvious plagiarism and so on.
It is also likely that the best way to avoid this type of situation long term, is for each community to have it's own decentralised echo-system, and that way outside actors with overwhelming stake, would have much less influence on how each community operates and governs itself.
@r0nd0n provided some great ideas in this comments section, that I recommend you have a read through.
I think a solution such as this (or similar to it) could be on the way soon. The sooner the better for all!
delegations assigned to freezepeach
tag @r0nd0n
ALGORAND.
if something gets flagged, then an alert goes to a RANDOM SAMPLE of 100 accounts. If an account fails to respond in 24 hours, their option is forfeit and their option goes to another random account.
60 of these delegates vote on whether to remove the flagged content (in exchange for some compensation in ALGORAND) with a bonus for voting with the majority (if there is a majority of at least 60 votes).
if there's a 59/41 split,the content remains unaffected.
I just dont know all this technical stuff at all, I had no idea flagging worked like this, I been on this platform since 2018 and I never got an alert like tht
Forgive me but I have no idea what your talking about
this is an ALTERNATIVE proposal.
currently, the rich HIVE accounts (OLIGARCHY) get to downvote whatever they want.
a much more fair system would be a RANDOMIZED CONSENSUS protocol (LIKE ALGORAND).
ooooh, bro I love it
nice.