You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: STEEM's Biggest Villian
Well, good on ya mate. Personally it's his bidbot that offends me, as all do. Society is not bots, and buying votes is not curation. If Steem can empower people to interact while enabling them to reward one another with votes, Steem will succeed. It has not, and bidbots - and flags - are a big part of why it has failed to do so heretofore.
People have social value, not bots. Social value is where financial value comes from. One without the other has no value.
Well, maybe someone can take this model and since it is open-source, fix it. It inspires a lot of creativity, but also plenty of discord too.
@l0ki started to do exactly that, but @berniesanders was part of preventing him from succeeding. Personally, I think @l0ki was the biggest opponent of his success, and @berniesanders just had some fun while he blew himself up.
I actually don't mind disagreement. Disagreement can result in discussion that revolves around facts, and that can be a very good thing. Enabling people to just financially crush those they disagree with doesn't improve society, and stake weighting does not promote prosperity as a result.
But, yeah, I agree. It might even happen here on Steem, if the code promotes society instead of draining it.
Yeah, disagreement is fine but the unclear rules of this system are strange. For example, the code encourages both stake weighting and downvoting by not disallowing these operations. It's all very subjective and open to interpretation.