The consensus on downvoting is weak, and needs to be strengthened. All voters are stakeholders, and share a common interest in growing the network and its value. Downvoting to the point of censorship is destructive to the network, but so is spam. Only spam/abuse of the platform should be voted into net negatives. When large stakeholders downvote posts and comments out of simple disagreement, they do serious damage to their investment by building the perception of Steem as a closed, unwelcoming, and unfree platform.
To address this I'm proposing 2 courses of action, the first of which every reader can begin now.
First, we should share comments and posts that are not spam but have been heavily downvoted to attract voting firepower to them. Every attempt at censorship should become a battlefield and an instance of the Streisand Effect. This effort will be further augmented when web and app developers implement the next action.
Second, Steem websites and apps should add a "controversial" section to elevate the visibility of posts and comments for which votes are highly conflicted. This will undermine the use of voting for censorship while preserving its utility for spam and abuse prevention. I think subjecting contested downvotes to more extensive community review and accountability could significantly improve the voting dynamics.
Ready to start? Go check this post and upvote it if it's still negative: https://steemit.com/steemitdev/@steemitdev/steem-blockchain-update-august-2017#@elfspice/re-steemitdev-steem-blockchain-update-august-2017-20170807t203318660z
Then find more instances of attempted censorship, share them, and link them below so I and others can counter them.
In the future it may (or may not) be beneficial to hard fork an update to make downvotes risk some of their stake to penalize abuse, but that's a discussion for another day.
Thanks for reading.
Down voting is not necessarily censorship. The platforms choose to censor based on that but I would actually suggest a reform of this using colors or something similar, not by hiding. That would deal with a lot of what you are saying.
The Steem blockchain does not mandate censorship and in fact has a high priority on resisting censorship. In this discussion you should make sure to make this distinction clear!
Down voting is very much required as it allows strong disagreement. Soft disagreement can be handled in comments, etc., but strong disagreement is important, and important it is felt in rewards.
On your first point, I reject the battle, war, fight, and all violent analogies to flagging. It's not person, it does not hurt, it does not cost. I do however recognize that without full understanding it can be shocking and demoralizing, and can be a tool for bullying.
That's one of the reasons I think your second idea is absolutely brilliant. The controversial section. In the mean time a report could be made by a bot to do this, but I would support it's implementation in steemit.com and other front ends.
And remember...
[IMAGE: https://media.giphy.com/media/7OCvLIlXc3Dws/giphy-downsized.gif]
@r0nd0n | Aug. 10, 2017, 3:27 a.m. | Votes: 3 | [
VOTE ]
It's not even that it gets hidden. In fact, hidden posts kind of stand out to me, and I seem to be even more likely to click them to see why they got hidden in the first place. It's the fact that the rewards of hundreds minnows and even reputation can be severely diminished with a single vote. This hasn't really been too much of a problem up until now, but if steemit starts gaining more widespread attention, the probability of corporate, government, and other nefarious actors covertly buying huge stakes increases drastically.
You have to imagine yourself at the bottom of the pecking order when establishing the rules of the game. Right now the worst that we see is an occasional ned flag, but that example can give a glimpse into the impact of special interests that want to dominate a narrative. People will know that if they want rewards on their post, they better not say anything bad about coca-cola, or the gov, or anyone else that controls the shares.
Well the hiding of it is symbolic as well as adding a barrier to engagement, there's no dispute on that.
The gov / corp argument though is interesting. Something like that occurred to me early on when I joined but I thought there was no real way to protect against that. Stakeholders are king here. If a large enough stakeholder comes in and ruins everything, you're looking at a Ethereum style fork after the DAO attack.
So do you suggest removing the flag entirely? @sneak seems to think we'd be better off without it, though admits we need it to counter abuse. How can we have it's abuse countering features without it's possible information suppressing features?
@r0nd0n | Aug. 10, 2017, 5:29 p.m. | Votes: 1 | [
VOTE ]
I actually agree with sneak there completely, which I find odd since I just upvoted and resteemed a couple of his flags with freezepeach. He's exactly right though; we need flags/DVs for abuse, and it's better to UV content you like instead of DVing content you disagree with. I don't agree with his minimum weight/rep solution as being a good fix, but it could be marginally better than what we have now.
I also understand that you can fork out any problem accounts that arise, and it may come to that eventually, but this solution is only a temporary fix which addresses the symptom of the problem instead of addressing the root cause.
We need a solution that does away with the flagging feature but also allows for spammers/plagiarists to have their rewards negated. Some have suggested an elected committee of moderators that solely have the power to flag, but that seems as easily corruptible to me as what we have now. I don't know the solution either, but I bet someone out there will figure one out if enough people talk about it.
what if we do a wikipedia style arrangement, where people can comment in a non derogatory offensive way "needs citation"... but needs more info, or have a 'shit posting' button when people just paste articles in.
I think steem should bolster original content that is for the nonce ... otherwise have designated sections.. now a flow of investment chatter with personal blogs? etc.
it is a nice having a mix though...
but I mean... some posts are a photo with no information about anything. and some posts are very spam but it is a bit of a sensitive topic, some people are learning how to write articles, it would be a shame if there was a policing happy bunch of samaritans spamming the spam buttons