I believe that we have not yet reached the point, where we can offer a platform like Twitter, not because it does not have the potential, it has immense potential, and fundamentally it is conducive to Web 3.0. But what I am trying to emphasize here is the fluid engagement like Twitter.
It's not about monetary benefits either. The people somehow carry a feeling that the downvote is analogous to censorship. I disagree with this. But somehow people carry a feeling like that. They feel that if two heterogenous ideaologies engage over Hive, just like they are doing on Twitter, the one with more Hive Power would make a concerted effort to silence the other, and the content would become invisible if it suffers heavy downvotes On Twitter, there is no such thing like this in Twitter. However, the people who actually control Twitter do suspend the account citing violation of their ToS when they find it clashing with their ideologies.
So I believe that We have not yet reached that point where we can offer such political debate, which may even sometimes be immense, and deliberative just like in Twitter. Twitter is still the best platform for political debate. The engagement that we envisage or aspire to bring that fluidity in Hive can be concorded by making it like a Twitter kind of platform if we can bring the advantages of both Hive and Twitter. From Hive, we want web 3.0 features, censorship-resistant, etc, from Twitter we seek to make an avenue for such fluid engagement with an assurance that the concerted of one party should not silence the other.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta