RE: The value proposition of Hive & Leofinance: DeFi DPOS Platform safety, security and sophisticated DeFi style earnings strategy, content ownership and censorship resistance, on our blockchain
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
This is a good question.
One of the tricky concepts of the Steemit and now Hive platform is reward pool and downvotes.
As I understand it, upvotes direct to authors and curators a portion of the reward pool, each day, but the rewards don’t belong to you until day seven, when everyone has voted to direct rewards to the afore going or to reduce the same rewards. So my understanding is they are not your rewards until day seven. But I have been downvoted and lost all my rewards, and it still hurts, it still seems unfair and I still wish downvotes didn’t exist.
Secondly, I understand the argument that the downvotes don’t erase the post, they just erase the rewards. I understand why that statement is correct in an absolute sense, in that the words and pictures have not been removed. But the monetary reimbursement has been. This is considered behavioral modification.
The difference between this behavior modification and censorship is the preservation of the content. But we must recognize the negative aspects of this, but I believe it is a solution to worse forms of behavioral modification like censorship, account termination, etc..
I hope we have a better solution in the future.
Second, the concept of hidden posts.
While you are correct, hidden posts are not visible when the page loads, but they aren’t deleted, and to read them you just click on them. Because the posts are still there, and because anyone who wishes to see the post, can see the post, I don’t consider it censorship.
This two is a reluctant action, but is the best we have, until we create something better, which is adopted by the majority.
I think any solution to this issue will be controversial, but I hope we can change it to a more tempered response in the future.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The problem is that many don't seem to understand what censorship really is. As soon as someone's speech starts being suppressed e.g 'behavioral modification' that's censorship. It's very disenfranchising that people are readily defending an obvious form of censorship while also saying Hive is censorship resistant. When you compare it to traditional or social media you can see advertisers or lobbyists changing what's acceptable to talk about and while this can be seen as a form of soft censorship, it has radically changed the way we interact and the content we consume. They are some things many agree that is unacceptable like plagiarism but if you look what's actually being downvoted it's mostly subjective suppression of a post on a topic the downvoter didn't like but others did. The thing that makes this 'behavioral modification' much more egregious than traditional censorship is that this behavioral modification extends to the curators. It lowers the ROI that people curating the post receive which could be enough to make curators think twice before supporting that author again. Even if you take the stance that the rewards don't belong to the author until 7 days, this very much should be seen as an attack on a person's livelihood because if the person doesn't 'modify their behavior' and bend the knee to tyranny then the process could be repeated. This is very dangerous thought policing and should really be taken into consideration when looking at the downvoting abuse. This alone gives centralized cabals a form of control and suppression undoing the decentralization we are all enjoying.
Well after reading this long rant that didn't bring any of the reason up that I downvoted people, I'm going to downvote at least 10 posts now that I feel are low quality.
For the sole reason of decreasing the size of the rewards pool and the inflation as a latter result.
I am simply using my freedom of expression to show dissent towards others ideas and its them who are against freedom of expression if I can not disagree and put my money actively into a counter investment of their ideals.
Did anyone promise you it would be strictly gains on Hive?
If your self esteem is so low you can't handle dissent towards your view point, then maybe you're too immature to be using the internet.
I made no claims to only be deserving of gains or that a promise of such was made. In fact, I didn't even say downvoting was a bad component of Hive. All I'm trying to point out is that it's on the opposite side of the spectrum from censorship resistance. At some point, people need to decide where the appropriate stance is to balance the 2 ideals instead of pretending to offer both simultaneously without any tension or compromise.
Quid Pro Quo is not mutually exclusive to censorship, that would be a vested interest not agreeing with a lesser vested interest, the lesser vested interest should take notes if they want to succeed at capitalist games.