RE: Centralization often works better than decentralization
This is a difficult argument that you bring some very valid points on. Personally, I could argue it either way as I feel there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument.
The whole point of having a blogging platform where every post and transition is recorded onto the blockchain is that makes an immutable transaction that no one can later deny. No one can say I didn't make that post. So to that extent, filtering out content does go against the essence of what we are trying to create.
However, I do buy your idea that where people are being deliberately malicious then there needs to be a mechanism to deal with it. The same argument could be used if someone wrote a spam bot that just attacked Steem with so many rubbish posts that you couldn't find the genuine ones. The situation would have to be health with.
I am not sure though if the argument of centralisation vs. decentralisation makes a difference though in that regard. As a decentralised governing body that works effectively and efficiently could also choose to promote such fixes to deal with any issue. At least in the decentralised world, it would be with the majority vote of users.
One of the things I strongly dislike in the world is bureaucracy. That is, when you want to get something done, and everyone sends you in the direction of some other person. What should have taken 5 minutes, takes days, weeks, and months instead. Why? Because it is decentralized, and badly organized.
I do some projects with central government. Each decision takes ages because of the bureaucracy they have in place. The result is that the work I do for central government takes 3-4 times longer than what I would normally expect in the private sector. The central government are not inefficient because they are decentralised - actually, it is the opposite. I think therefore either a decentralised or centralised system can be inefficient, ineffective and also either can be unjust.
The biggest problem, in my opinion, therefore that we face with Steem and the new forked H community, is not one of centralisation or decentralisation. It is that both have acted with some dubious behaviour that has damaged our community.
Finally, the forked H community have a problem that even though they claim to be decentralised, the power is in reality held with a small set of powerful users. They rule the roost and by doing so, they also destroy the myth of decentralisation that they claim to defend.
What we need, is a platform that supports the people who are really using the platform for what they intended. That is a great blogging platform that encourages the building of great communities.
I love you all...
Love is so powerful. Lets spread the love to everyone making this a brilliant community and all those who want to join us.
Your comment would have deserved an article on its own! Why don't you do that? So many good thoughts and arguments here, and I agree with you all.
I might just do that thanks.
Excellent comment @awah
The problem is that so far I've never experiences such a thing as "efficient decentralized governing body". It's always very unefficient.
Decentralization = lack of leadership, lack of one vision and plan, lack of anyone responsible for failures. And it means slow decision making process.
Yours,
Piotr
I agree with this as many good ideas do not come to fruition because they haven't got people at the helm to drive through adoption. As soon as you start rewarding those who contribute you are back to power in a few hands. So in a political sense, decentralisation is difficult to achieve. It is a utopian idea.