You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Decentralization and Subjective Expectations
The problem exists in that, if there is a ban hammer, it gets used.
And suddenly, you are now in danger of losing everything you built.
Such is happening on ThemTube right now.
What starts off as "noble", "getting rid of the bad guys", turns into getting rid of people you don't agree with.
Thus, if the ban hammer exists, then honest person feels the sword of Damocles hanging over them, and the dishonest person just knows that hey, at some point i will get caught, then you just start another.
That's true. I hope it never goes that way.
In that case, maybe a solution that would comfort anybody is to keep the freezing and investigations strictly to phishing and scams and related issues? And draw the limit there...
I understand your concern, and these things certainly happen when the human factor gets in. But maybe a set of agreements that is detailed beforehand i.e: Phishing scheme. Maybe that would make everyone more comfortable... I don't know.
And aside from that, there are people who just don't like to see the users "protected" and the criminal "punished". As Acidyo was recalling in a comment earlier, some people were just pissed off that Ethereum protected people's ETH from the hacker. They took offense at the hacker not being able to get away with stealing people's money... In their eyes, he should walk scot free.
This is what makes this governance thing so interesting, it's like a massive human experiment. I don't know the answers, that's for sure. I have an opinion and tomorrow it can change if I find some very compelling data, we're all in uncharted territory here.
Personally, I just try to make sure that my opinion isn't wrapped around a pre-existing expectation.
That's why I thank you for your comment. This is totally a valid concern, because things can go from noble to draconian when the human element is involved. I wonder if we could get something in the middle.
Like instead of the wild wild west example I mentioned, maybe try a little voluntarism. There are some small basic rules which is to not harm any person, nor their property and it remains that way.
Either way, this will be very interesting to watch and I hope it ends up for the best.
It is the same solution that is needed here on Steemit.
We need opt in groups and lists.
Made by anyone, followed by anyone (with privacy settings)
Then we can limit our view of steemit to that which we wish to see.
Or we can follow some of the best curators out there.
Or we can exclude all of the "the-alien-blacklist" list.
We need a lot more controls on what we see, and how we sort it.
If it is going to be a law in the steemit sphere, then it needs to be hardcoded into the chain. The lines have to be clearly known, and the triggers have to be set in stone.
Because, if you are an administrator on a bulletin board, half your time is banning trolls, and the other half is unblocking someone who was just stupid.
In the future, the interwebs will be different. Everyone will have their own private "wall" server. And sharing info will be to those you allow to view your wall. Completely in your control.
Those walls you want to see are all under your control. With an actual really great AI that can help filter and find stuff based on all kinds of parameters, including your mood.
There will be no one blocking anyone from speaking. But, you can ignore everyone.