RE: Will Hardfork 21 Operant Conditioning Prepare You to Accept Social Credit?
Because of the new tool, you can now either give out carrots to posts you enjoyed, or you can whack the post with a stick. Perhaps the author had a wrong opinion or said something you didn’t like. Maybe it’s your job to teach people what they can and cannot think or say or do. Does this sound at all healthy?
This was always a choice. Everyone keeps talking about the modifications they will need to make after the fork, yet everyone will have and always has had the ability to
pick the path of freedom
It is undeniable that the current path is not working, based on the fall of relevance in market cap. I'm not arguing that these changes are what will fix it, but it is obvious those catered to under the outgoing system doesn't appear sustainable.
If some stop posting what some deem quality posts, others will probably step up and fill their shoes. I know for myself I stopped posting about 4 or 5 months ago because it had become like a second job doing the research and such and was not in my best interests. The chain survived. Others are chased off or stop for the same reason I did. The chain survived.
If a way to create a demand greater than supply is found, the chain will stop losing value and probably grow. Maybe to its former level of glory. That demand has been proven to not be achievable catering to authors. More authors are cashing out, not buying in.
I am guessing the flags are an attempt to stop some of that cashing out, especially by authors who post drivel and then bot it up.
Hello, @practicalthought!
You abbreviated my second quote a bit, I said:
I come from a type of freedom-loving people who; just so long as your neighbor isn't violating the liberty of someone else, then you really ought not to nose into their affairs, or try and force them to act in a certain way. It's one thing to express yourself with words, but then it's another thing entirely when actions are taken to influence behavior. This is when things move beyond decorum and into the realm of hostility.
After the first condenser started, there was an unforeseen glitch in the matrix which was quickly discovered by STINC. They learned that abusive flagging will occur and that there is nothing they could do to stop it. For good or worse, that was the nature in the design of the strange new creation they made. After this discovery, they added for a flag reason 'reward disputes' as a catch-all to get everyone to shut up and stop bitching about abusive flagging. It was a clever way to "end the conversation," but it didn't quite solve the problem of abusive flagging.
With a post like this, I'm trying to communicate with Steemians on an individual level to let them know where the culture seems to be going, and allow them to realize they have a choice in how they behave. Just because someone gives you a hammer, and you're bored, or you think you can change the world, doesn't make everything a nail. IMO the expectations that some Steemians have for "saving the blockchain" might be on par with saving earth from global warming.
Just how much influence does hostile flagging have, and who's done the cost/benefit analysis on it. For example with global warming, even if we did destroy all industry (carbon output) in the name of saving a few degrees in temperature is it worth sacrificing the human race for?
I tend to believe they knew upfront the pitfalls of the stake based system. The mining thread (imo) seems to bear out that they wanted the most stake so they could control the system they were creating. Enough that they had a second mining event, cancelling the first as they found themselves not coming into first due to technical difficulties. It isn't difficult to foresee that those with the largest stake could do whatever they wanted within the system parameters to those with lesser stake.
I abbreviated the second quote, as it addressed not only your points, but others who may come here with bad feelings on the upcoming changes. It can all be boiled down to we have the freedom to conduct ourselves how we wish, pre hardfork and post. It is a matter of choice if one allows such things to dictate their behavior.
I do believe that it is possible that this will chase off yet more of the user base, but financially I am not sure it will be harmful to the ecosystem here, and can even envision scenarios where it could be beneficial.
I can appreciate that you (and others) are not fans of the changes. I too am not a fan, despite the affect for me being lessened due to no longer blogging. I will be curious to see if enough leave due to what they believe censorship from flags if they would start their own site of freedom. I have wondered for years now as the complaints of censorship have grown why such a place has not already been put in place, although I suspect in its own way it would resemble an echo chamber too.
This is a good question, however it comes back to the stake based system. If those with the most stake don't want a cost/benefit analysis on it, or have done one and even see that lower ranks will be casualties and are ok with that, then it will be so. In a stake based system, freedom is based on your stake.
The awkward part about the stake based voting system is that it was married up with social media which was something no one else had ever done at the time. It caused the two to become indelibly linked, and resulted in unnatural behavior, i.e., the ability to prevent a perceived incoming value from rewarding a post.
So you can look at freedom in that way if you choose to but then you're overlooking the social media aspect and what freedom is in that regard. At this point, I wonder if mixing the two was smart at all? I know WeKu has a very similar system, but they only have one condenser. Their system has only the upvote button. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Steem came out with that model.
I think it may have set a better example for the others to follow. I'm not sure how many out there have created similar models so it's difficult to ascertain whether or not it's realistic. One thing is for certain, I wouldn't run around in life, like I'm Caesar and thumbs up or thumbs down stuff. It seems far to simple a way to think and rather bipolar too. Translate the up/down system into an adage from a parallel universe and it would sound a little something like this.
"If you don't have something nice to say, do something mean."
That sort of black and white binary thinking seems destructive at best, and the idea that people might be programmed or encouraged to act in this way; similar to the episode from Orville or Black Mirror's 'Nose Dive', is super disturbing. It wouldn't take long and you could train a whole generation to think this is a completely normal thing to do. People who didn't thumbs up or thumbs down would become heretical weirdos, and like the unscannable persons in idocracy, they'd be feared and loathed.
This is not true. Stake weighting has been used to extract rewards such that whales received ~90% of rewards. How is that 'catering to authors'?
@freebornangel often refers to the whale experiment, and you can ask him how reducing stake weighted extraction of the vast majority of rewards impacted creators.
You seem to not be aware of the impact of flags on the rewards pool, and how the rewards that have escaped whales' clutches are thereby made available to them for a second try. The most prolific flaggot has been Bernie, whose socks flew more flags than any other group of accounts to date. Have a look at how he profits thereby, self-voting his bots. None of the flags on my account met your speculation as to purpose, since I have never cashed out.
Demand is directly driven on Steem by users, and authors cashing out is not why user retention is below 5% today. It's due to profiteers extracting almost all rewards, and is exacerbated by the ability of flags to censor and demonetize accounts with less substantial stake. It's of note that the vast majority of Steem remains the stake of ninjaminers today, and only the expenditure of huge amounts of fiat to purchase those stakes could prevent that, which very few people could do, and fewer yet (apparently none) would find reasonable.
User retention is key to Steem price, and Steem price is reflecting the dismal retention rate. How halving author rewards, increasing flags by 25% of SP that is extracted from inflation - essentially a tax on rewards, adding a 10% tax for SPS, and decreasing the value of votes potential to the vast majority of users is going to improve retention is not clear.
In fact, it's ridiculously impossible.
We'll see that proved in the next week or two. During the coming crash, please consider how to actually cater to authors, because that's how to increase the price of Steem. If you want some examples, I have posted how this can be done before, and will be glad to reiterate how to do so.
We disagree on this. If it weren't true then there would be much less Steem sitting on exchanges because authors would be buying in creating a demand. Looking not only at current users, but the many who came and left, I feel confident in my belief most never bought one Steem and cashed out whatever they received. I imagine how different things could have been here if the majority that came would have bought in. Looking at some of the more popular bloggers here, several have large stakes (not whale size but decent) and some of them mention it was all earned, none bought. How different the picture would look here if the masses had decided to buy their way into a middle class here.
I fully understand how the flag impacts the reward pool, and how those with the most stake benefit the most from the rewards being returned to that pool. While I would never assert that malicious destruction of lower staked accounts is beneficial in many cases to the growth of the system here, I am not so quick to let the common users off the hook. I interacted with many here that have been of the mindset they would vote others at dust level despite not having to, under the assumption others should pay for dust sweepers if they wanted anything from the vote.
I agree with your assessment this fork will shake up the community, and that many will probably leave. Some will leave that are important to me, and that sucks. But I imagine those who come to milk will outnumber them.
Steem is having a crises in identity. The majority of users here came with no intent on investing in the project, only extracting from it. That is evident by how few are even minnows, how many aren't even close to it. It's easy to point at whales and blame them, but if the masses had come and bought into the system they wouldn't be searching for a community that wants to support the project enough to keep it from falling. They would already be here and it would be reflected in market ranking and price.
My cynicism in the project grew many months ago, and it was the gib me mines now mentality of the masses that hammered it home for me the current structure was unsustainable.
We point to the whales because they have the stake to let steem reward 'good' content as it was designed, but choose not to do so, for whatever myriad reasons.
I'm in favor of the flags because of how they negate abuse.
You do know that the top 10 votes, not voters, votes, takes ~30% of the pool, each and every day?
Very little of the inflation makes it out of the largest hands.
Flags are our defence in the crab bucket of steem.
We can let them sink themselves having 100% of nothing, or we can use our stake to voice our dissent to that plan.
Sad that you would join with the malignant actors, but you gotta do what you do.