Is it abuse or is it just how capitalism works? What is the difference? Or is there a difference? I understand and I may sympathize or empathize with that. When I first joined Steem in 2017, I was feeling that there was soft censorship or abuse or something in Steem. But I'm now thinking that Steem is ok maybe.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@joeyarnoldvn Flagging (or soft-censorship) on Steemit allows people who have amassed large amounts of Steem to nullify the votes of dozens if not hundreds of other users, and change a posts potential rewards from:
$X← to → $0.It also simultaneously causes the flagged post to be hidden (or dithered out). If you've ever run across a post that says click to reveal, it means that post has either been downvoted, flagged, or soft-censored.
With respect to the element in flagging that hides the post from view, it's closest real-world parallel is censorship. With respect to potential rewards being diverted, there are various parallels.
Capitalism might be one of those parallels depending on how you choose to view it. Steemit can be viewed in many different ways. A casino gulag, a business, a social networking platform, a way to receive value in exchange for posting user content, or a way to troll people with your whamhammer like some devs choose to do.
I would recommend reading the updated white paper, it's a curious experiment, what I found particularly interesting was the last paragraph of page 16.
Image via Freedom Feens
"The fact that everyone "wins something" plays on the same psychology that casinos use to keep people gambling. In other words, small rewards help reinforce the idea that it is possible to earn bigger rewards." – SteemWhitePaper.pdfEx-FaceBook President Admits Facebook Exploits a Human Vulnerability
If it were censorship, nobody could see it any more. Your claims are total bullshit. But you may consider yourself lucky that you obviously don't have the slightest idea what censorship is.
very nice post
Capitalism is exchange. Capitalism is a casino. I like voting. I do not down vote because I think it is better to reward, to focus on grace, on what I like. I guess people can down vote too but it is dangerous to go down that path. Is down voting part of capitalism? Not sure about that. I upvote. I comment and share. I may never down vote and flag for a lot of reasons.
I'm closer to your view @Joeyanoldvn I don't flag much. I did flag phishing scams.
Lovely.
It also costs them to exercise that power... sounds fair to me.
Steemit's plan would work, except people realise (after a few months) that you need money to gain popularity.
Steemit is like capitalism set loose... It only works for those at the top.
That's how capitalism works. Benefit the few at the expense of the masses...
Same fundamentals de-centralized.
In a way so that no-one can regulate it. It's pretty bad...
if you really believe that, why are you here?
what do you define as "works"?
I'm here to complain.
In elite Marxist circles, I believe that's known as 'useful idiocy'.
What. Protesting is idiocy?
No. Being used as a pawn in a game of political emotions is idiocy.
"unwitting agents" or "recruited assets" are similar terms.
Last I checked, capitalism is winning. In a world of scarce resources, some do better than most. And while many may feel excluded from the big boy's club, it doesn't meant the club itself isn't doing just fine for those participating.
Which is precisely why we should equal things out.
Us whales buy steem. Do you? If not, it'll be hard to get there ;)
That's a classic response. I'm not talking about whether or not I can make myself a lot of money on steemit (I use it to blog) but the fact that a few people recieve all of the reward pool is bad, and will drive users away from the platform.
Last time I was looking the platform was growing. And I know a lot of persistent users doing just fine. Today's dolphins were yesterdays minnows.
Yes, the trending list is shit, and of course the reward pool could be distributed way better.
Personally, I go lenghts to make sure my votes are distributed as broadly as possible. Meanwhile I watch flocks of minnows trailing votes on already trending posts.
Like in the real world, the problem you percieve lies deeply in how humans act as a society. It's not capitalism or socialism. It's tribalism and self-preservance. That won't change. It's easy to criticize, but it won't lead you anywhere.
Just be assured, steem won't die because of it, just like the real world doesn't either.
You're using logical fallacies here. Just becuase it's "natural" for us to kill each other, and fight over the remains doesn't mean it's right – or it benefits us. If everyone is out for themselves, then we are constantly trying to fight and outdo each other. If, however, we collaborated then we'd achieve more. This is because we'd be able to collaborate, and take advantage of the unique qualities all of us offer, meaning we could discover more and do better.
nice