You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Psychology | Incredible Insights into Human Behavior!
well, the assumption here is that human is incorruptable. Even in a centralized system, the people who holds the power at the top routinely fail. It just happens that in a decentralized system there is no pretension to be "righteous."
Is the decentralized system worse off than a centralized system? I don't believe so.
But is a centralized system necessarily worse than a decentralized system?
My argument is that this centralized-decentralized debate is a false, binary paradigm that detracts us from the greater point -- the system is only as good as its operators. Otherwise, the same problems we find in traditional centralized systems (of governance) will make their way into decentralized systems, with the only difference being the specific channeling of the problems.
Exactly. In a centralized system, those who wield the power would definitely be a strong advocate for their own benefit. Likewise for a decentralized system for people who are systematically marginalized.
At the end of the day, people are not really inherently corrupt. It's human to look after their own self-interest. Unless there's a better to way to so-called "level" the playing field, I feel that Steemit gives such marginalized community a better way to earn a living.
I think you will find that over the course of time, a decentralized platform doesn't really help people who are systematically marginalized if the leveraged operators within the system abuse their power.
Steemit does give the minnows a voice, but this is only based on what I would term as "relative allocation." When I have more time, I'd love to expound on this point.
As an aside, what I can recommend is to use Steemit for a few more months. I think your opinion about the network may evolve over time! :)