You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Poll: Enhancing the "Mute" Feature

in #poll5 years ago

I disagree. Plagiarists, identity thieves or other fraudsters should not be a excuse to take away the right of regular users to mute and hide unwantes comments. Its time to stop letting those very few people hold everyone else hostage.

Downvotes are still visible and can easily be checked.

Posted using Partiko Android

Sort:  

I think the case could be made that 'the right of regular users to mute and hide unwantes comments' should only apply on rewards-declined content. Otherwise, the rewards are coming from a shared rewards pool and the user doesn't have sole ownership over it.

'the right of regular users to mute and hide unwantes comments' should only apply on rewards-declined content. Otherwise, the rewards are coming from a shared rewards pool and the user doesn't have sole ownership over it.

Id argue that the reward pool has nothing to do with the content ownership. The reward pool does not enter into the intellectual or creative property of the content in any way.

This is a frontend issue in my mind and thus not subject to any inherent mechanic or attribute Steem has as a blockchain since the steem blockchain cannot and never will be able to deal with such specific questions of content property or human interaction.
This is the next layer where community consensus and application ownership are being discussed.
As Steemit.inc says in the post, its their call what to implement, if someone else wants to create a frontend with their own rules they can....

All that being said, i support this change.
Do i think its marginal? YES.
Do i think there are other far more important things to think about?
YES.
Do i think the Steem community is very small and the loudest members of the community fall into one extremely narrow political worldview and that it would be extremely hard to get a objective, unbiased, thought out response from them that isnt subject to the echo chamber, aggressive mentality that stems from the disdain of the mainstream social media equivalents?
Absolutely YES.

But as the question stands alone. It depends how you do it. If you do it right and watch for all the "leaks", this is a superior option to the one we have now and i support it.

the reward pool does not enter into the intellectual or creative property of the content in any way.

Yes of course that is true. Property of the content itself is a separate matter to rewarding it out of the common reward pool. Being able to reply (and not being blocked by the poster) as to why content may be more or less worthy of rewards is an important process. The points about @cheetah and @steemcleaners are a subset of this but any stakeholder may have valuable information about why the post may not be worthy of rewards, and letting the poster unilaterally hide that seems problematic.

Posters can always downvote comments they don't like but then it becomes a community decision (by others voting as well) whether those are hidden, which seems right to me when those comments are discussing the posts value or lack thereof for reward purposes.

As Steemit.inc says in the post, its their call what to implement, if someone else wants to create a frontend with their own rules they can....

Certainly true. I'm giving my view on what seems best for the integrity of the reward pool and avoiding abuses, which is something they very much care about, as evidenced by both quoting of @anyx's comments in their follow-on post as well as their work on EIP in HF21.

If we are going to move away from a community reward pool as some have suggested, then it becomes less of an issue and the discussion threads can reasonably start to be viewed as the private domain of the blogger to filter and moderate as they see fit. But until and unless that happens (which isn't the case now or in the imminent HF21) I don't believe that should be the case.

!dramatoken

Thanks for being on this side, the wannabe royalty here is off their chain, imo.

Being able to reply (and not being blocked by the poster) as to why content may be more or less worthy of rewards is an important process.

Sure. I agree, at the blockchain level. But we are here discussing an option that is absolutely and undeniably available to Steemit.inc to do with as they wish. Im saying that them extending that choice to the creators in the community is a great addition that people should applaud
Giving a part of the power Steemit.inc has over Steemit to the content creator is a positive thing. This is a matter of social media governance that would be extended to the creator.
Why do we want Steemit.inc to father us? Here they are offering us power and most of the people here.. i think 100 out of 120 are saying:

No we do not want that power, we dont want that freedom!

That is supremely confusing to me.

My thought process is very simple:
You are willing to give us more power on your platform??? I will take it!
Why in the world would i say: No! We shouldnt have this choice! Only Steemit.inc should!

The points about @cheetah and @steemcleaners are a subset of this but any stakeholder may have valuable information about why the post may not be worthy of rewards, and letting the poster unilaterally hide that seems problematic.

I just see that as a marginal thing compared to the offered. There are a huge number of ways to ensure abuse would be countered. The cheetah comment is really a minuscule thing and i know for a fact that steemcleaners are doing a poor and calculative job of fighting abuse. I mean @anyx will probably admit that openly if you ask him.

Downvotes could be made more visibile like on Steempeak, blog posts can always be made about the abuse, even abuse fighters blacklists could be used to take away features like this one from blacklisted creators which would give SFR, Steemcleaners more legitimacy and make them a bigger factor on the platform by giving them power over front end features. That is a big deal.

This would imo benefit everyone expect the harassers and trolls.

But we are here discussing an option that is absolutely and undeniably available to Steemit.inc to do with as they wish

Yes and for the second and last time I'm giving my opinion on whether and under what conditions it is beneficial to the platform to do that.

If they didn't want our opinions they wouldn't even be making these posts, they would just deploy whatever features they want and that would be that.

You are willing to give us more power on your platform??? I will take it!

This is exactly the sort of mindset that results in people self-voting and vote-selling to the detriment of any value the platform might have in terms of content discovery or incentivized growth. It is a myopic view that puts ones own short term interests ahead of the success of Steem. The end result is you're able to take advantage of the freedom of all these great options made available to you but it won't matter because Steem will continue circling the drain until it eventually enters it.

I'm more interested in looking at the systemic effects and whether they are overall good or bad for the platform, and I don't think this is unconditionally good. Apparently a lot of other people don't either.

Some features somewhat like this can be usefully offered without doing more harm than good but the reality is more nuanced than just "give maximum power to content creators". There has to be a balance.


You've got DRAMA!

To view or trade DRAMA go to steem-engine.com.