This post is an Ask Hive of sorts without particular expectation of answers - it's perhaps more like asking Hive to consider what I am raising. If a discussion is stimulated around this with the result of greater transparency in where - if anywhere at all - this might be headed, that'd be kewl. Even better - for me - would be to observe this conversation taking place without myself getting bogged down in it. Although I may have my own observations, thoughts, analyses and opinions on what I am about to present, my intention is to leave out detail and keep things as open and high-level as I can.
I wish to call out and acknowledge what I see and to do so without engaging with the energy of dispute or waggy, pointing fingers. Much has already been written along this theme from various perspectives and under various headings. I'm sure there will be recognition in many minds of what I refer to at a general level. That is my starting point!
A bug has been stuck in my throat for a rather long time. This post is the process of relieving myself of it.
Basically:
The core of the issue is - as I see it - perceptible currents of action on Hive being taken around the question:
What content should and what should not be 'allowed' on Hive?
Within the context of a public blockchain, this really equates to what 'should' and 'should not' be visible on Hive. Nobody can be stopped from interacting with the blockchain but the amount of visibility these interactions get can be greatly affected by a number of factors, including the actions of other users of the Hive ecosystem.
However, the issue seems to me to be more nuanced than the above formulation and appears to be informed by the notion that:
Certain type(s) of content should not/ought not to be allowed full visibility on Hive.
I am not talking about the obvious: abusive porn, hate this or hate that. I'm not talking about the kind of stuff that looks and feels dirty, violent, aggressive in ways that are unmistakably destructive. I'm not talking about the kind of stuff that is already locked out of most communities on Hive!
In view of the above, the core issue – as I see it – can more accurately be reformulated as action and thought on the Hive blockchain which is galvanising and being galvanised around the notion that:
There is a certain kind/type/genre/class of content which already exists on Hive which should not/ought not to be allowed to have full visibility on a par with the 'regular' stuff. As this content cannot be prevented altogether, it can at least be discouraged and/or suppressed through various means.
That's more like it!
I'd like to query the Hive Blockchain itself on this to gain a better understanding of what is/may be taking place. I am NOT calling out a 'conspiracy' (har har :), I am issuing a call for transparency. I am also, I guess, asking Hive to bring self-awareness to this issue such that it may be addressed at a more consciously acknowledged level. I don't code and this is not Python being scripted 😱. This post itself is the query and I do not know what the output might be, nor do I have an intention for putting the data to any specific use. I'm just Open-Sourcing my thoughts!
Right, so WTF? What is this 'Content' I speak of?
Anyone remember @quackwatch and the his/her list of 'quacks'?
The QW account states that:
"This is an account that keeps track of all sorts of quacks that have been infesting the Hive ecosystem like a disease.
It has been created to inform the users about all sorts of quackery, delusional/irrational beliefs, toxic ideologies, and pseudoscience.
Although some of the information published by the users that have been added to the blacklist may have little harm, the majority of it are very dangerous ideas/beliefs.
...
This account is a form of resistance to the spread of intellectual foolishness and lunacy that is threatening the intelligent and sustainable progress of human civilization."
QW then goes on to list the accounts on Hive considered to engage in this dangerous quackery.
My account is on the list of 'quacks' and you can read my response here - which I believe is pretty measured and also offers a counter-balance to QW's rather dramatic statements.
The point is that there is a discernible movement (wider than Quackwatch but seemingly contiguous with QW thinking) towards, and appetite for - labelling certain content as 'dangerous'. This is clearly taking place in the world at large and it seems also to be finding favour in chunks of the Hive blockchain. This 'dangerous' information is generally of a nature that questions or challenges the existing/current/mainstream narrative on history, current events, how the world runs etc. 'Dangerous' is also the term increasingly being used by many to describe, for example, information that challenges the notion of the current pandemic and the governing/reigning view on the need for a global vaccination programme and how this ought be carried out - ie information that describes a situation closer to a 'pLandemic' than a 'pandemic'.
This is also - clearly - the kind of information that tends to get collectively lumped together under the umbrella term 'CONSPIRACY'. In spite of this category being extremely broad and wide-ranging, the term itself is widely-accepted as being somewhat synonymous with dismissible labels such as 'crazy'. The label 'c/Conspiracy' can be stretched to cover almost anything.
I do not intend to delve into the philosophy or psychology of 'c/Conspiracy' or make a big deal of the label. Many aspects and accepted 'truths' of current life were once held as being fringe, far-out etc and would've had 'conspiracy' or similar labels applied. Also of note amongst the human population is the almost universal experience and acknowledgement of how power corrupts and how Power seeks to perpetuate itself through any means, including using force and manipulation. Examples are littered throughout history and one may ask why the Present Moment would be any different in this regard!
Facebook, Youtube and other BigTech, as well as the mainstream traditional media and various influential national and trans-national bodies and organisations, have been taking action to prevent discussions of various topics and this is a huge understatement! There are 'fact checkers' who provide 'approved' and sanitised versions of what passes as 'news' along with the underlying message "trust us to filter your information for you as it is a very confusing world out there and you don't really have the tools to do it for yourself". One is not presented with the 'full picture' by any means. Informed consent, informed choice and all those other 'informed'-dependent activities naturally become compromised in such a system where confusion reigns and a subset is presented as if it were the 'whole'. The 'authority' of the system is stressed and trust in it encouraged at the expense of a more DYOR approach to information gathering, personal opinion and decision making.
It seems as if a variation of the above is now beginning to feature in the Hive ecosystem, a place - ironically - formerly seen as a refuge from the crackdowns taking place elsewhere. On Hive there are voting patterns, discussions/arguments/debates and discernible behaviours that indicate this to be the case. There are suggestions and hints of various forms that point to the existence of some kind of 'Power Structure'. I do not make any calls on how amorphous or well-formed these structures may be, but they will most likely be composed of networks, friendships and mutual interests who would wish to see the blockchain steered in certain directions (and, implicitly, not other directions).
I dare say that if you, the reader, have made it down this far then you have a fair idea of what I'm talking about, whatever your personal position on this may be!
There clearly are Power Structures already on Hive - each selfconscious grouping of individuals with clout that intends to use their power and clout to bring about certain alterations, launch various projects etc can be said to fit into this category. Many of them do excellent work and we would not be here without them. Some Power Structures are less visible, less fully-formed - perhaps secretive, perhaps conspiratorial. This is possible, even likely.
It seems very clear to me that there are lines being drawn on the Hive blockchain regarding the visibility or not of certain content. I do not know much about what form the planning or intention for action takes. There seems to be a definite interest in pursuing something along these lines amongst a number of folk with hefty wallets but I cannot (and do not care to) speculate on how loose or how formalised these 'groupings' might be.
I only have circumstantial connections to offer with which to follow such trains of thought. The following connection is one such circumstantial connection and all I am doing is exploring and enquiring...there is no accusation or assumption of intent on the part of anyone to do anything in particular. I am also not implying that anyone in particular may be part of any of these 'power structures' on Hive. I'm interested in where this 'whole thing' may be heading and I think the example below is relevant here - that's it!
On a recent post which featured some heated discussions, I came across a comment made by @blocktrades in which he was talking about the design for a new system to rate information on Hive. Part of what he said was:
"...some people say false things intentionally, sometimes by mistake. I want to build a system that helps you decide the truth in both cases. The second case is really the harder problem, as you might imagine, although even spotting simple deception can be tough enough sometimes"
The comment which followed in response to what he said made me sit up. This is the 'circumstantial' connection that I am making between the ideas in the post and Blocktrade's proposed work. It is not accusatory - I stress this point again! Here is the response to BT's comment:
"Ah yes, that sounds good. Kind of like a fact check system. There was alot of misinformation going around about the Vax and deaths from COVID etc. I try to avoid those posts, I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and free speech but there is also a line when it can cause significant harm."
Like I said, circumstantial only! An opinion of a fellow Hiver, yet one that seems to have many echoes around the world and around Hive too. It is therefore usefully pointed out in this example, along with the underlying tone of agreement with a system that would decide what is and isn't true for the benefit of all as it would protect from information which is dangerous and can cause 'significant harm'.
It may sound good to some, but WHO decides truth and how can one know anything of this truth if it is not openly discussed, simply accepted as true on the authority of a Fact-Checker (human or algorithmic)? Algorithms are written by humans and can therefore carry a human bias into the code! 'Truth' is much more nuanced than even the largest trail of data that an algorithm can crunch before making a decision.
Besides - and this is a BIG one - if something like the label 'dangerous misinformation' runs in only one direction, how can one be certain that the label itself is not the very act of 'dangerous misinformation' being used to conceal 'dangerous truths' on the part of those applying the label? One cannot be certain under such circumstances! This is one of the basic contentions of many of those listed as 'conspiracy theorists' for example, and is a strong argument for full information disclosure so that own minds can be made up. Here we can also - for the sake of contrast - pivot around to the opposite notion which holds that since the abundance of information is super confusing, there is a need for a middleman entity (fact-checker type) to simplify it for our understanding. See how this could be used in a twisted manner by 'authorities' and 'powers'? Does anyone imagine that this is not already taking place on a massive scale?
But hopefully not here on Hive!?
Blocktrades elsewhere provides links to two posts of his on the topic of designing/building a system to rate information on Hive. These posts were written around six months ago and they are high-level descriptions and analyses. The second post states early on: "...I’ll start to introduce some possible ways that computers can help improve the ability to rate information. In particular, I want to look at ways to improve our ability to rate information based on other people’s opinions. Many of the ways we’ll look at to do this are just extensions of methods that we already employ today in our normal lives." The two posts are linked below:
- A peer-to-peer network for sharing and rating information
- Modeling information in an information rating system
If you read the posts, you will see that what is being described is not by any means an easy, simple or clearly-definable thing. It should also be made clear that Blocktrades does not explicitly state that certain types of content ought to be excluded. I do however wonder what his thoughts on the 'core issue' of this post are - is he sympathetic to what was said in the reply to him quoted above and on-board with a system to identify information that can cause 'significant harm'? I do not ask/demand that he justify how his system is or is not this or that, but I welcome clarifications if he be so inclined.
I think that one can quite easily see how such a system could be designed and built with biases embedded into the model itself. Technically and hypothetically this is true right? I am NOT stating that BT is doing this but I am using this example to question the need and efficacy of such/similar systems especially if they do take the notion that certain information is 'dangerous' and if they offer to 'decide' on my behalf.
A system such as described by Blocktrades will likely be optional to use but widely deployed. Where it has features of 'search', I welcome it. Where it has the potential to carry through what I see as fundamental biases, I remain aloof until I know otherwise. BT may have no such intentions, but it does seem to me as if other powerful interests on Hive do seem to desire a system for identifying 'dangerous' information.
Is it true that information can be dangerous!?
Although I think witholding info is more harmful than holding info, I am really not sure whether the concept that 'information is dangerous' is itself sound. This is the basis for the reasoning against letting certain information be visible and it doesn't seem at all clear-cut or black'n'white to me!
Is it true that folk benefit from fact-checked info?
...or is this simply convenience often at the expense of precision, even truth?
Is it possible that the design of a system to rate information on Hive could be designed with some of the biases towards 'unwanted' information of the type referred to in this post?
Is this likely? Is this to be desired? Am I being paranoid?
Questions Questions Questions
........trillions of them, everywhere....when they bite, when they prick, when they trigger - are the questions themselves at fault? Is the questioner perhaps at fault? Why does this sound kinda wonky?
The 'Unity' of Polarity?
Thing is folks, we are in this together. Like it or not! Regardless of POV and positioning on - for example - the spectrum of 'pandemic' vs 'pLandemic', the issue affects us all. In this particular example, one spectrum of polarity seems to be something along the lines of:
EITHER
- Humanity faces an existential threat like never before! We must all adhere to officially proclaimed, expert-led guidelines in order to survive. Those that do not, or refuse to comply, potentially threaten everyone's survival by their non-compliance. Information which challenges or purports to dispute official claims/the 'accepted' view is mis/dis-information. This information is dangerous, in part at least because folk could be lulled into a false sense of security and underestimate the danger posed by the existential threat. The Science is pretty much settled on this and in any case, we are in a Global Emergency requiring unprecedented action, even if that means curtailing what were once held up as unassailable Human Rights. We need to pull through this together and this will only really happen if we all act in the unison of conformity to officially agreed and advised action. Any notion of a 'conspiracy' behind the global pandemic is as outrageous as it is ridiculous!
OR - The above is a heavily controlled and manipulated narrative propagated by powerful vested interests which have been hard at work on an agenda to control humanity for at least a century, if not longer. Many global and trans-national govt. and non-govt. bodies and organisations; BIGpharma, BIGoil, the military-industrial complex and the vast majority of politicians and social influencers - are already under the control of these interests. Far-out as this may seem, there is ample evidence for the above claims although the bigger picture does take a while to emerge through the cracks in our conditioned consciousness (if curious, please enquire in the comments and I or someone will provide some links to explore if possible). The current global situation is a planned-pandemic: a 'pLandemic'. The visibility of information supporting this is being suppressed by the very interests that are pushing the narrative of Fear. Counter-information is currently mainly to be found on alternative sources (one of which is Hive :). If Folk were able to have free access the full spectrum of available information, they would be able to make up their own minds. They may be shocked and surprised at what they learn and this is often an incentive to stop researching further for fear of what one might find out. However, we need to explore for ourselves - each individually - if we are to wake up to the multiple LIEs that are so big they can sit pretty in plain sight in spite of all the evidence. A tsunami of manufactured fear and division leading to loss of liberty, even loss of humanity, is the threat we face collectively. These are big statements and they are being increasingly repeated the world over by many people who just a few years ago would be considered 'establishment' figures and not 'nuts' for having chosen to speak out. What if there is something to all this after all? Might it be worth a wee investigation with an open mind?
Many labelled 'Conspiracy Theorists' have, actually, through the course of life's experiences, moved from positions akin to 1 above, to position 2. I am certainly one such who has made that shift. I refuse to see ABSOLUTE divisions - everything is in flux and this changes constantly with understanding and perception. I acknowledge that the TIMES are such that sitting on the fence feels sharp and uncomfortable and there seem to be fewer places to hide one's head in the sand. Either side of that fence appears to be populated by extreme voices that seem to drown out the VAST areas of overlap that exist between ALL shades and variants of human thought and existence, both on and off the fence.
Divisions are like boxes - they confine, separate and insulate. We are the overlap, we are the 99% and all that Jazz. We are the unbounded ones with Power though we may choose to give it away. Regardless of any this's and thats, we are in this shit together - CHECKED AND VERIFIED FACT ✅.....right?
I say let the Emperor stand tall that his nakedness may be inspected and dissected, awkward as it may be on closeup view. May there be no pretence of clothing where none is present. Should the noble creature be dressed in this or that attire by one or other (or a collaboration) of Hive Power Fashion Houses, may this be done in an open and transparent manner such that those, like myself, who are rather delicate and sensitive souls, be able to make informed decisions about whether to move on in a search for an anarchic, emperor-less domain... or else stay on this beautiful experiment of a blockchain and expand along with everyone else....hmmmm!
Perhaps we may be pleasantly surprised to find that there is nothing to worry about after all and that outpourings such as this post are the products of the type of deranged mind which has already - alas - succumbed to the dangers of misinformation and whose wild-eyed call for folk to wise up to what's going on can safely, sensibly and with full trust in the certainty of one's own received knowledge, be ignored, dismissed as crazy rantings and muted for the good of all.
If you've made it down this far and still think the mind that penned this (and other similar minds you may come across on Hive) to be unsound, vulnerable to/a proponent of dangerous misinformation, unsteady and unable to think for itself, I heartily congratulate you!
Many thanks for your time and attention
Namaste 🙏
Hi, your article is quite long, so I'm only going to address a few points that I saw were directly related to the software I'm planning to create, since you've directly asked about it.
Yes. Most obviously, false information can be dangerous. If your pharmacist mislabels your pills and it says "take 4 per day", when you are only supposed to take one per day, this could cause you to end up in the hospital (or worse). I could go on here with many more examples of how false information can be dangerous, but I hope this makes the point clear. Honestly, I feel anyone should already know the answer to this question without it being asked.
Partial information can also be dangerous, even when the information you have is true. If you are told it is safe to be under water for several hours, but you are not informed that this is true when you carry an oxygen tank with you, then you could also find yourself in a precarious situation.
And finally, even complete information can be dangerous at times (not so much for the recipient, as for others). Christians have been killed in some places when it was discovered that they had abandoned the prevailing religion in the region in favor of Christianity, for example. Even recent news articles have discussed where spying software has been used to obtain information that later led to people being imprisoned and/or killed.
Sorry, I find your point here difficult to understand/vague. First, it really depends on what you think fact-checking means. But in general, double checking information from a source is not "convenience at the expense of precision, even truth". A perfect example of how fact checking can be useful is to double check the dosage on your medicine with a doctor if you think there's a chance your pharmacist got it wrong. This fact checking could save your life.
You're being paranoid. If you read my posts more closely, you would find I've explained many times that the information rating results will vary depending on which sources you yourself rate as trustworthy. For example, in an extreme scenario to demonstrate the point, you could rate only your own opinions as trustworthy and the rating system would rate all other information as untrustworthy.
A natural consequence of this is that different people will get different answers about the truth of the same information. The allowance for diversity of opinion is baked into the system.
Two final points, one about Hive and one about the information rating system:
Thanks for a prompt and fairly detailed response. I wanted to wait a few days to see if the post attracted any discussion in the comments but this hasn't happened. I'd like to respond to what you have to say in brief and without provoking argument:
My perception is that the issue of 'danger' arises when something is done with information - ie. it is the use to which it is put rather than anything inherent in something that is of itself inert. I'd wanted to explore this idea in the post and comments.
The 'fact-checking' issue is problematic IMO because it introduces the bias of the fact-checker (human or human-created algorithm) as a middle-entity which presents information in a simplified black-and-white manner (true or false). Not only does this discourage research, it also turns 'fact-checkers' into gatekeepers of information ('allowed' vs 'not allowed'). This is undoubtedly happening in the world-at-large. I'm concerned about this being replicated on Hive.
I did suggest in my post that 'allowed' on Hive - as I was using the word - meant 'allowed to be visible' by, for example, not downvoting. I suggested there is a desire to make certain content lower in visibility, a conscious and stated intention by an unknown number of folk with hefty wallets. The type of content I am referring to is the stuff generally labelled 'conspiracy': for example information that claims to demonstrate the harmful nature of the current global 'vaccination' programme. It is the type of content that your interlocutor (quoted as replying to you) says can cause 'significant harm'. I'd wondered about whether you agreed as I considered that that might be a bias that enters the system you are designing. You did clear that up somewhat by indicating what you did about how the rating system will work, and I leave it there - your opinion being no biz of mine beyond the mentioned concern :).
There's obviously much more to say but I doubt much point in doing so, especially since the post and the ideas haven't had much traction :(.
I thank you again for taking the time to respond.
I somehow missed your reply previously, but then someone just left me another reply on this post (calling me a "whack job" as it happens, so I guess the emotional temperature of this post is high for some people at least). Anyways, I suppose some good came out of it as I can reply now.
Sure, in a completely abstract sense, false information does no harm, if no one relies on it (the "use to which it is put"). But your argument is completely impractical, IMO. The whole point of spreading information is for people to make use of it. That is the purpose of communication. So it's a specious argument, IMO.
When someone conveys information, false or not, there is an intent for it to be used in some way (although, in some forms, such as fiction, it is just meant to entertain). But from the context of your post, it is obvious you're not referring to information that purports to be fictional in nature.
It sounds to me you're objecting to fact-checkers who you believe have an outsized amount of power in persuading others they are speaking the truth. I presume you don't object to fact checkers who are fact-checking mainstream media, for example. Or do you? Are you saying that no one should fact-check anyone and we should just listen to each person individually and make a decision about the truth of that person without relying on input from anyone else? I think it would be best if you clarify what you think should and shouldn't be allowed with respect to fact-checking, because I think you're trying to coat a generic term with a lot of extra meaning.
To your first point: free-flowing information itself does not seem to be dangerous, rather the application of info (the use to which it is put) that can take forms which may be considered dangerous by some or many - a knife may be used to cut tomatoes or fingers and some may blame the knife as much as the person wielding it. Information can also simply be 'used' to inform and, arguably, informing ourselves is what we are doing with info all the time. An action may be triggered by one specific bit of info/data yet itself be a much more complex thing born of multiple info/data points, thus giving the superficial impression that this or that bit of info is 'dangerous'.
To your second point, I'll quote myself from the article and hope it clarifies my view of 'fact-checking':
I'm going to Post this again...
Some of the people IN CHARGE of the Downvoting such as @blocktrades have made some terrible errors here. ... Terrible errors.
People who FEAR information need to go.
...or perform alchemy even: transforming FEAR by facing it square on unflinchingly!
Been Facing THIS sQuarely for some time..
... the flinching is from the Dyskinisia.
Hey BT. Just read this.
At the end of the day, voting affects what is written, not what is allowed to be written.
Hi, similarly, I just read this, so sorry for delayed response :-)
Voting CAN affect what is written, but it doesn't have to. That's mostly up to the writer. If the primary goal of their writing is financial reward, then yes, voting will probably affect it.
This can definitely be perceived as a weakness of the current system, but in fairness to myself I will point out that I didn't design the primary economics of Hive, nor do I think removing downvotes would solve the issues related to the economics. I do have some ideas for long term improvements to the current model, but there's a lot of code that needs to be written first and I haven't even started yet.
I don't think removing downvotes would solve this particular economic issue either. And far be it from me to hoist any criticism whatsoever. I commend all your work and have personally only ever heard good things about you. And frankly, I'd like to see a bloke try to do what y'all do every day. He who cast's the first stone...amirite?
I'd be curious to hear what your long term improvements are to the current economic model. If you can "layman" it. I get the feeling it'll be well over my head. I'd also be curious as to how you felt about other things as well, but I'll stop here for now.
The most fundamental change is probably not very controversial at this point of time since many here have lived through the "vote wars" of the past few years: move the primary rewards for content to the 2nd layer, allowing for competing opinions on the quality of a post to co-exist. We've almost finished up the first step required for this work now with implementation of the HAF framework. The next major step is to implement a smart contract system on top of HAF to enable support for community-based tokens.
In addition to the above work, my related area of interest is to research ways to improve our ability to get and assess information and to improve our decision making processes (both as individuals, and as people organized in groups on larger tasks). To me this is the most important and challenging problem facing humanity nowadays, and I believe flaws in our current processes (e.g. bad governance models) have lead to a lot of unnecessary conflict and wasted effort.
I've discussed some of my early ideas for this research in the post below in a form that I hope is mostly accessible to the layman reader: https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/a-peer-to-peer-network-for-sharing-and-rating-information
I also wrote another post that goes more into depth on some of the technical details (which you might want to skip), but there's also more down-to-earth question/answers in the comment section of the 2nd post that may clear up some things up about my ideas so far: https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/modeling-information-in-an-information-rating-system
You are so cute, @blocktrades, for your decent attempt at layperson english. I am literally in the process of consulting my blocktrades translator (klye) so that I might ensure greater success in interpreting what it is you have actually written.
Once I have obtained said translation, I will respond to you thusly.
And again, I do truly appreciate your time in writing this up. It means a lot. I LOVE hearing your thoughts. Sorry I'm not up on all the stuff.
UPDATED -- OK. I'm up to speed. Will comment tomorrow. Love what you're doing though. And bless your heart. I read your peer to peer network for sharing and rating. good stuff.
OK. So it sounds like what you're saying is, the majority of the voting, and the voting shares, should not really be taking place on the hive blockchain proper, where authentic participation still sometimes leaves much to be desired when it comes to who should get what and why.
But it should be taking place, as I know all you blokes have been saying for years, in well distributed (decentralized) hive-based projects like LeoFinance, Splinterlands, PAlnet, NFTs showrooms, and so forth. And the HAF has made this easier for them to develop, and will lend itself to smart contracts in the future. Which is great. I have always agreed with this type of growth.
In reference to your rating system, I read your articles. I REALLY enjoyed both.The trust network intrigues me greatly. The "visiting cousin" analogy worked very well. There would obviously need to be a way of overcoming the limits of who is in your trust web.
But it's an insanely cool idea to basically be able to have a system that tole me “Alice is right 80% of the time” really does put a twist on things, doesn't. This would change the game of dating immensely, I'll tell you that right now. LOL
WOW!
To think I supported you...
You sound like a whack job! Stick to code and IT and stop trying to control the human drama with your ABSURD interpretation of notions. I should hope the whole damn HIVE ecos go the way of Steem.
Sorry, I but don't understand exactly what you are objecting to in what I wrote. I couldn't find "notions" in my response, for example.
If you have specific issues to complain about, I will attempt to respond. But "you sound like a whack job" doesn't really help me understand what you're objecting to.
I meant to say...
You sound like YOU are part of the problem here. Which is a shame, because I Was a big fan... big fan.
I know I am late reading this but
Thank You
for writing this.
......and THANK YOU for reading through it and - from your reaction :), being sympathetic to what I was trying to dig out, and to which I otherwise had little response :(.
I enjoyed reading your post about the kind old man in the library. It made me think of something I wrote along vaguely similar lines :D.
yes, freedom of speech should not have any grey lines.
Hive has many grey lines........
and I will end my comments there.
Thank you for showing me your other story!!
Amen :)
Even freedom of speech has its exceptions. You can go to prison or suffer severe civil damages for disseminating misinformation or allowing dissemination of misinformation that could harm people, if you are considered an authority on the subject or a steward over the listeners. Or if you are knowingly negligent in your dissemination, regardless of your level of authority or stewardship. You can also go to prison for encouraging dangerous behavior and attitudes that result in harm, especially if the attitudes and behaviors were based on misinformation or hate speech, and especially if the behavior and attitudes encouraged come from a person of leadership or authority who is aware their encouragement will incite violent or harmful behavior. Such as the Black Lives Matter rallies that resulted in violence and destruction of property, for instance.
Freedom of speech is just what it says but there are always consequences for your actions if you do anything with evil intent. Why Laws are made because people are stupid and do evil things.
Very good point. Although, it's not freedom if it is enforced by a law official who wields a gun and keys to the jail. If a consequence far exceeds the action, I'd say that's not freedom. It's something else.
again, that is something done with evil intent....
I think Janis said it best what you need to do to have true freedom.
Wow! Quite the post, good sir. :)
Now... I've written in-depth about truth. I've written in-depth about power structures & content-censorship. I've even written about the impact of labels used in communication. So I won't get into that more here.
But I will say your post here is well-written, open-minded, and it seems as if much care was taken not to accuse, enrage, or inflame anybody (though it wouldn't surprise me if some readers end up that way regardless, lol.)
It almost makes me want to write another 20,000+ word post on 'Systems', followed by another on 'Value', both things I understand both consciously and intuitively, but which seem to confound so many others, heheh.
I appreciate you raising these questions, and I hope fulfilling answers are forthcoming.
Wishing you a great day, @barge ! 🙏
Thanks for coming by @ryzeonline, and for the reblog 👍🙏.
I like that you link relevant posts - you pack so much into them and this is great on-chain cross-referencing. I encourage anyone reading this to check 'em out.
Nice, it's a pleasure to know it comes across as such. I certainly took a lot of care not to accuse or provoke - apart from anything, I don't wanna get bogged down in debates, shouting or shooting matches :). I think the low response may, in part at least, be to do with the issue not being seen as an 'issue' by many. I was also rather vague in the outline - although clear enough in general I feel for the idea to be conveyed. To raise awareness would probably involve a harder push, with accompanying specific examples and socially explosive consequences lol.....the time for that may come, who knows!
Ha ha, there's defo something of a word-machine embedded in your system :P. A study of 'Systems': big time overview followed by how it relates to the Hive pond-type thing would defo be of interest. As for 'Value', good luck...didn't Phaedrus (in Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) end up getting sectioned coz he went crazy trying to figure out what Value/Quality is/was? 😂
In the fullness of time, brother, I believe all Questions will have Answers (and all paradoxes will be reconciled :).
HiveRyze-on my friend, and see you on your post if I can locate my opinion on the Fiat/Crypto game ;)
My pleasure, and glad you like the links. On a chain like this, relevant content can easily be buried, so I aim to contribute a bit towards surfacing some of it.
Yeah, your care to avoid shooting matches is great here.
I agree it may in part be due to perception as a non-issue. On top of that, many factors affect post-response, view-counts, engagement-level, and so on. Most of them hinge on persuasion techniques. If we showed this post to a persuasion expert or a million-dollar+ copywriter, they'd likely have numerous pointers and adjustments to offer. (Specific examples & explosive consequences perhaps, lol.)
Haha, yes, that does appear to be that in my system, lol. I have a lot to say on the topic, and I intend for inspiration to strike when the time is right. Also, I already have a huge outline for the topic of 'value', I believe deeper understandings allow me to out-do Phaedrus while maintaining sanity, but it could just be hubris. :)
Thanks for a great chat, and see you on my post! 🙏
Y'know, the story of your account's ryze over just four months to where it currently is, is itself an excellent Hive marketing point/tool IMO. I'd be curious to see if His Excellency Lepidoptera agrees lol.
Also very much enjoyed your chat about peakD with Jarvie. I thought you both handled each other's friction/attrition very well initially and that the convo developed into something with a real nice flow. I started off listening at x1.75 but had to slow it down coz it (well you!) started to sound like a hi-speed rap recital ;).
And yeah, I guess the million-dollar advice folk would tell me that trying to be softly softly just ends in a limp, dunked biscuit...or something funky like that........and I'd have to agree 😩.
Keep breaking those records my friend, I love seeing them shatter 🤗.
Haha, indeed, I applied specific persuasion, marketing, and LoA basics in order to #ryze so fast in my few months here, and I'm sure Lepidoptera will agree, because everyone comes around to the truth given a long enough timespan (reincarnation incl.)... eventually.
And I'm thrilled you got to hear my PeakD chat. I believe the friction was completely unnecessary lol, but I'm glad it all worked out.
I do speak rather quickly, aiming not to 'waste space' and to 'pack in' as much value as possible, relying on people like yourself to either speed it up, slow it down, pause, or rewind as necessary. Haha.
I love the 'rap' remarks from yourself and @cynshineonline (she may be referring to my Godzilla Rap Performance, which has improved significantly lately.)
LMAO "limp, dunked biscuit" ... well at least you're open to agreeing with them, many don't have that level of self-honesty or self-awareness.
And thanks so much for the words of encouragement, they matter, mean a lot to me, and help! 🙏
There's so much meaning in this trippy art. Thank you ;) 🙏
This made me LMAO! Especially since @ryzeonline raps pretty fast! 😂
LOL yes, that's exactly what it reminded me of :D
Oh, you knew what she meant, clearly, lol, my bad. 🙏
LOL!!!! ❤️
My position after reading this statement is, the general IQ level on HIVE is at least 50 points above the general public by default. I feel like we can decide for ourselves what's quakery and what's not. And we should also be able to decide for ourselves which quakery we care to subscribe to.
That being said, if there is information being disseminated that could harm others, if assumed true, I don't see any harm in having it be challenged by a third party. Whether or not HIVE should be that party is lock-step with how youtube and facebook regulate and censor their content.
On the one hand, they consider themselves exempt from authorship and responsibility. On the other hand, they pull information that does not suit their positional needs. This occasionally includes content that they believe might "harm" the public if disseminated. I think it's generally never a good idea to censor OTHER people's content, unless you assume responsibility for the liability as the overarching publisher of that content.
Well said indeed!
I think the challenging aspect is very important. After all, if something is sound, it should stand up and if something isn't sound, folk should wanna know about it. Also I'd like to think that the 'community' would act as that (decentralised and headless) third party....but it doesn't seem to work like that a lot of the time. (Perhaps not with you though :)
And there is the WTF puzzle if/when a 'mainstream'/widely-accepted chunk of info is being disseminated which - in the view of many, and backed up by considerable evidence - could not only harm others, but is prevented from being challenged such that it may be discovered by all if such be the case or not. :D ¯_(ツ)_/¯
....and raises the ol' question of decentralisation, for Hive, with its XYZ+50 IQ ;) surely considers itself different from those dinosaurs....and yet similar-looking dynamics do seem to be desired by some who prefer 'dangerous' info to be banished rather than challenged......or so it has seemed to me when thinking about this post in general, and perhaps to you when typing the final para of your comment.
Thanks for taking the time to read and engage with this amorphous, perhaps shadowy, yet, I think, VERY FUCKING REAL, subject on Hive.
🙏
The big question with internet publishing forums today is that most of them want the immunity of a disinterested party, while still taking great liberties at screening, moderating, and controlling content that is published on their platforms. It appears as though Hive makes it a point to stay out of people's way and let the ledger speak for itself. But I do know that copyright infringement and plagiarism are frowned upon, as these would bring a lot of unwanted legal attention to the platform. As would allowing indecent material regarding children, for instance.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The problem is, they are allowed to moderate, screen, and pull content from the public view all they want, which makes them an interested publisher in my opinion. But they are protected against liability for the attacks in 2019 linked to Hamas, where those attacks were orchestrated on FB and FB was not held liable in any way.
Congress on both sides of the aisle think Big Internet has too much reach and not enough liability. And Australia seems to be handling those guys a LOT better than we are in the US.
You should check out @apshamilton
That list is hilarious! - a proud moment
Quackwatch is a joke, but anyone who does some real digging into the origins, associations, and funding trails behind Steemit/Hive is going to unearth some real dirt!
that was logic's racist user segregation system
I like how "truth" is a bad thing...lol
Yeah, I didn't realise until someone pointed out in the QW comments that 'truther' is to do with 9-11 truth, which, from the QW POV seems to be false ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Right, didn't know who might've been behind QW.
Cheers :D
I don't expect someone who claims that there is an invisible dude in the sky who must be obeyed, prayed to, and worshipped, to understand the meaning of basic words such as "racism".
Before you put your tinfoil hat back on, go and educate yourself what the words "race" & "racism" mean.
Ha ha, yes indeed and a great compilation of interesting folk to check out. Here's my badge of honour, although I don't quite recognise all the talents in myself that QW obviously seems to 😇
....was kinda hoping to get some indication of the current pulse but I guess the post was too long, convoluted, indirect, not 'hard'. I was looking for synthesis and cross-views + indications of directions and intentions.
Ho-hum, mebbe shouda listened to you ;)