While I've had some concerns about hivewatchers there always needs to be a human element in any anti-abuse system.
Any automated system can be beaten by smart humans. AI is actually pretty stupid and always will be.
Also justice and fairness requires the availability of human review of all decisions made by automated systems.
Centralised social media is such a mess because of over-reliance on automated systems because humans are expensive. But on Hive we have a self policing community that moderates content for free.
Hive has a sustainable model, AI is not.
I don't disagree with the need for some human oversight, however whether a human feeds the post into a text box, or it's fed into an API, the resulting findings would be the same. You could also build it so an accused person could present their counter claim on chain. For example in a direct reply to the bot: I really own this content and here is the evidence of that; or my mistake, I forgot to add citations, and here they are.
One or two people doing it manually is sustainable? Is it scalable?
The whole point of upvoting and downvoting is that the whole community moderates content.
This is the core idea, and it is mostly being distorted by the steep distribution of power. With a flatter distribution of power, this idea of the community self-regulating could mybe work.
I am not sure if this can ever be fixed; powerful actors would have to give up their power.
Like in real world, it e.g. would need a power-cap. It is bizarre that someone here has 1000000 x the power than others. Quite a reflection of the world out there...
In my opinion it is absurd that we have to talk about policing in that way.
Hive is getting more and more distributed all the time. The proportion held by Whales is always decreasing.
But there will always be variation in HP. It reflects commitment to the platform over time.
Those that have committed more (time, money and skill) to the platform will have larger holdings than those that have only a passing interest.
This is how it should be.
But should larger holdings (and profits!) equal larger power? And if so, to an unlimited extend?
I am not sure about the numbers, but right now I would guess that the distribution is not unsimilar to the one of wealth on the planet. Very very very uneven.
I think that there is a way out of this dilemma, but for this we all should admit that Hive as an experiment of maximum decentralisation has failed, and move on from there.
Yes, first and foremost, I'm arguing that an algorithm should present the whole community with the information they need to make informed voting decisions, rather than it being obfuscated by taking place on discord.
Delegating responsibility to a couple people is the whole community moderating content?
We literally have one person in HW deciding on what is and what is not abuse. It's worse than centralized media.
We need more eyes and volunteers to maintain an algo.
We aren't asking for a machine to decide it all. We need a machine that can aggregate potential problems for the community to review. Not one dude and his one or two mysterious partners.
the solution is simple, let the admins of each community moderate their community. problem solved.