RE: Will Hardfork 21 Operant Conditioning Prepare You to Accept Social Credit?
a friend of mine expained downvoting to me in a way that made a lot of sense. I'm gonna paraphrase what she said and apply it to this post.
when we express our lack of support for a post, it's usually about the information (content) the post contains, the reward the author is getting, or the wording, if it happens to be contrary to the beliefs of a community. for an example, hate speech.
we are engaging in what the free-market calls market forces - how society self-regulates, as opposed to relying on centralized governments to regulate our behavior for us. We regulate each other, and that's how societies and markets work when left alone.
I think the downside to this is social mores and popularity; the prepensity of a society to judge based on personal ethics, likes or dislikes, rather than by unbiased rules of conduct. We are trusting individuals in the community to be fair, which is a hit or miss proposition.
When enough people express their opinion on something in a similar manner, it becomes in affect the "ruling". society will continually respond to this self-regulation -- not all at once, but person by person.
The other downside to this is power, which in the hands of the wrong person is detrimental, especially if they are unstable or hold a grudge.
I think that language is a smooth way to sell downvotes. However, at the same time when someone initiates a market force against a post because they don't like what is said in it, it's hard to not see that as a hostile action. Kind of like, if you got a nice upvote from someone. You might be oh cool so-and-so just gave me a nice upvote. What you're not going to say is, oh cool the market forces smile down upon me. I understand that downvotes are a reality, I just don't want to see people programmed in such a way where they start to act as they did in Black Mirror's nose dive episode, or Orville's Majority rule episode. That would be a very ugly world indeed.
i agree theres a fine line between market force and hostility. its a matter of opinion and ethics. for example someone pasted vitriolic comments in my last post. he got downvoted. is that hostility against him? it sure is. the action said to him, we don't approve of this behavior.
there's also the hostility of someone like coininstant to anything that gets his panties in a twist. is that hostility deserved? not so much. its a very much case by case issue.
i think the uses for downvoting as a market force are needed given the issue with whale circle jerk and bidbot abuse. imho if we dont control corruption, it will eventually ruin the viability of the platform.
I think they should just make a platform, and they probably already have, where the content creator can moderate comments on their posts without involving market forces. This way they kind of have ownership over their respective posts within the realm of that particular condenser. I'm sure at some point someone will make the perfect condenser the will end up drawing in the majority of people. A lot of people seem to like steempeek, but I haven't tried it out too much yet.
its a good idea, but also not. think of this: if the media could just erase any opinion presented that disagrees with the author, how would we have any meaniongful discourse? it would leave it up to the author to accept the challenge. so miced feelings.
i love steempeak because they are constantly bringing in new features and trying to listen to the users. i highly recommend it, not only for the ability to see multiple token payout, but for the ability to use ten tags instead of five
What it would do is create an illusion of ownership which only works on the condenser who implements it. I say illusion because these comments could be viewed on any other condenser.
ya well basically that already exists in some platforms. basically if you want to be contentious or have enemies, you need a pretty thick skin.