RE: @freezepeach: The Flag Abuse Neutralizer
I had no idea the debate between the terms "flag" and "downvote" was so contentious, but the intention of my introduction would not change if I substituted the two. Everything about this is related to the weight those two terms represent, and how that weight shapes the future of steemit. This admittedly ambitious and, imo, forward-thinking campaign is about allowing unpopular opinions to survive on their own merit, encouraging stake holders to use their weight to uplift the content they wish to see, and facilitating incentives for engagement and discourse to take the place of a downvote.
When a spammer gets downvoted, it is to punish him for that behavior. When a user gets the idea to copy/paste articles as their own, downvoting sends a clear and concise message that kind of action on steemit will not be tolerated. When a user voices an unpopular opinion, and a negatively weighted vote wipes out the earnings on that post, it sends a strong message to the author (and all the small fish who happen to see or upvote the post) the consequences of voicing it.
As many flee to here from the corporate controlled social media sites with the promise of a censorship-free blogging platform, they learn that censorship-free* carries an asterisks, and the fine print leaves a bad taste in their mouth. Sometimes these become the people that a thousand downvotes can't influence, the "self-righteous spammers", and their evangelism is detrimental to the effort and time that gets put in advertising the platform. To the uninitiated trying to wrap their head around how this revolutionary platform even works, this negative word of mouth can be enough for them to pass by all future mentions. By providing users another option to de-escalate situations, hopefully eliminating some of the negative feedback.
I hope you don't read this as a pessimistic outlook of doom and gloom, because I'm quite optimistic about the future of steemit. I'm investing my time and effort all in order to get a conversation going because I believe in it. The problems I'm hoping to address happen sporadically at best as of now. But, with the incentives downvotes carry, and the ever more formidible userbase gaining steemit the spotlight, big monied interests will not be far behind to use the tools at their disposal to control the information as they see fit.
I can definitely see a difference between a flag and a downvote. With the current flag system I will only flag something that is obviously abuse(plagiarism, ID theft, etc..) I won't flag something that I disagree with because no matter how wrong I find that opinion, I feel like people should be able to express it and I don't want it hidden.
Now if there were a downvote feature that didn't hide a post but did allow me to show my disagreement with a post and use my stake to impact the rewards I would use it. I would use it for things I disagreed with (Holocaust deniers, racism, sexism, etc..) because while people are free to share their opinion I don't agree that they have a right to be paid for them. If enough people are voting their stake to downvote a post it should still be visible, but its up to the community to make the judgement on rewards.
LOL at your example of "holocaust deniers;" have you looked into just how many times in history the "6,000,000" number has been trotted out? Now, why would that be? [Edit: there was even a TV show with that number in the title in my youth! -- "The Six Million Dollar Man".]
And "racism"? Why is it a bad thing for one to prefer the company of those who look like one, think like one, behave like one, and worship like one? I mean look at Israel, it's 75% "Jewish", and they have walls and immigration agents and procedures. What's good for the goose, etc...
I also think there's nothing wrong with "sexism" -- similarly, "discrimination" shouldn't be something illegal, because if a shop-keeper is discriminating against a certain class of people inappropriately, then the community should discuss this and decide to discriminate against the shop-keeper.
"Discriminating tastes" is a thing! Lately people have been forced to modify it to "discernment" because of the PC crap brigade.
(Note, not downvoting you.)
I've got nothing wrong with open discussion, as I said in the post, so long as the only option is a flag I won't be flagging anything that isn't abuse. My thoughts on discrimination are sort of along those same lines. I feel like discrimination should be illegal when it comes to things you are born with (race, sex, age, etc..) However if it is something you have a choice in? Go ahead and do things your way, if people don't like it they will go elsewhere. For example, smoking in bars? Go for it, if enough people don't like it they wont go there. Religion? Thats your choice, if I don't want to deal with you because of some disagreement than so be it.
Are you saying you don't believe that the holocaust happened or just don't agree with the exact numbers that are generally accepted?
I'm always curious as to where people draw the line when it comes to what things they believe. Does the guy who believes the holocaust never happened laugh at the flat earth people? Do the flat earth people laugh at the hollow earth people? Does the hollow earth guy immediately dismiss the ancient alien guy as a loon? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, I just enjoy seeing where people will believe one thing but immediately dismiss others.
Where I disagree with you is I do not think discrimination should ever be illegal. If someone wants to not associate with people who have earlobe holes for whatever superstitious reason -- they should be allowed to eject earring-wearers from their establishment!
The community can then react to this inappropriate discrimination with their own discrimination, and not give that establishment business.
But I fear I'm repeating myself, and it seems you prefer a government-based solution. [Edit: discrimination within government should be illegal.]
Note also that "innate" characteristics still nicely fit into my paradigm.
They do indeed fit in your belief system, I just happen to disagree. I do agree with discriminating against ear lobe hole man (earholes as we call those pierced wierdos...) because it was a choice on his part :)
For me personally I choose to draw the line for discrimination at things you cant change. Anything that you are choosing to do I've got no problem including you/excluding you on that basis.
I think we're actually more closely aligned, then, with this thought: I agree that the community should shame those who discriminate against innate characteristics (like, my from-birth broken eye).
I disagree that "thugs with guns" should get involved (i.e., government). But I completely agree with a community adhering to its norms and rejecting outsiders who clash with those. Just, not rejecting by force -- rejecting by discussing their behavior and, if unwarranted, choosing to spend money at another establishment. Or starting a competing one, if none exist.
Agreed, which is why with the flag as it is I won't flag someone just because I disagree with them because their views still deserve to be seen. If the flag were instead a downvote that didn't hide the material but just effected the monetary reward? I would use it on things I disagree with because while I wholeheartedly agree they should remain visible, I don't agree that just because you write a post that it is entitled to a reward.
Perhaps the function should be split into two user-interface items?
Allow downvoting to remove funding; and have flagging which makes it invisible?
I'm fairly new here (a month or so), and know that I need to read the whitepaper for better understanding, but it seems that a simple split would resolve your quandary.
As far as the money aspect, that's what I need to know more for -- i.e., should the flagging cost the same as the downvoting? My initial guess is it should cost more, as blocking something is a stronger action. Cheers!
What if "the community", in aggregate, decides that they want thugs with guns?
If I can't harm people with guns, then I can't delegate to someone else the ability to harm people with guns. I realize my position is "ideal" and "the real world doesn't work that way" -- but this is my answer.
"The community" can want to kill 95% of the population ("Georgia Guidestones"), and I'd be against that as well. I would use force to defend myself, hopefully avoiding taking another soul. Realizing that "it's not all about me" -- it's about the journey and what I learn and how I react to situations, which determines my ultimate fate at the end.
"Holocaust" = less than 200 000 not 6 million, but everyone is laughing at flat earth believers and that myth was started by the same people who started the 6 million myth
I wonder who produced this TV series...
