RE: Untangling the Gordian Knot that is Steem Ethics
i think you are missing the social aspect. if a large portion of people downvote a post, that is an agreement that something in that post did not meet criteria. same as with upvoting. for example, if someone shitposts and awards themselves $300 thru upvote and bidbot, that is draining the pool unfairly because it isnt giving any value. that person could have invested their money, but it might not have made that huge reward. so in essence they are abusing a loophole for personal gain. does investing a huge amount of money give them the right to make this gain? thats the question.
since i didnt invest in this platform solely for financial reasons, i think the whole entitlement about how much money one deserves to make from social media is ridiculous. to me its in the title :SOCIAL: It isnt investment media, it isnt get rich quick media. The whole concept is getting skewed off the original premise; one of interaction with other people, trying to build something worthwhile to profit everyone, not just the few whales on top. no one made people invest. if they made the mistake of thinking its a free lunch, thats their fault. The group gets to decide the value, not the individual.
I agree and second the above question. I also can't help but wonder if a hard fork ever does thwart capitalists from capitalizing will it cause a mass exodus? If so, wouldn't that prove yet again that the enforced sharing model, no matter what name one calls it, generally tends to fail flat on its face?
when you are dealing with a lot of capitalists yes. i happen to be more of a socialist, which i get a lot of flack for, because they have a different concept of socialism than i do. i think there are people who are willing to work together in a way that it benefits the community, as the community supports the individual. people that come in with a purely capitalistic mind set tend to get upset because they envision quick profit, which is a problem. steem is a group investment, not a short term stock with dividends. i feel people should come here with the idea of investing in the community, because they believe in that vision. i think this is really tricky, because if we are appealing to capitalist investers, it wont wash.
Thanks for your feedback @torico, it's always good to get your take! Any ideas on how steem might appeal to socialist investors? It should be interesting to see how it all pans out in the long run. I think it was an interesting experiment to have, but now they're going all weird with it, and it will be interesting to see where that goes too.
well i'd like to see it take crypto and go into a new social movement geared towards sustainability and grassroots, more decentralized government. not everything has to be pure socialist or pure capitalism. it sounds illogical but i favor a sort of decentralized socio-capitalist democracy, the kind that takes the environment into account. this would take a huge cultural paradigm shift in so much as no, you dont need 8 cars and 3 houses and 10 million dollars. just people who all work toward a common goal of a thriving community.
im not sure where steemit will go. im not really a financial person so i keep my nose out of that, but i'd like one day to see a steem village.
I want 10 cars. Don't stop me from doing what I want to do. Private property rights. Otherwise, who decides? It always comes back to centralization or decentralization of powers in regards to who decides what is best for the environment, etc, etc.
Your version of socialism exists in the free market in the form of partnerships, relationships, teamwork, the free market, in working together, in competing, in being humans, in the fundamentals of eternal love and eternal principles. Regardless of how you see socialism, the problem is within federal governments, globalism, authoritarianism, tech cartels, corporatism, monopolism, etc, etc, in what they have been doing, etc.
I disagree. Part of your argument involves bid bots. But how would you stop a bid bot? And what if a bid bot is doing exactly what a person would have done in upvoting and downvoting? Would you steal money from Facebook or McDonald's for making too much money? We may want to but the free market is about supply and demand. We should focus on making money. We can focus on upvoting what we think will make a lot of money. We could get mad if we lose the upvoting game when we find out that these other posts that we didn't upvote made a lot of money. I believe in trying to make a lot of money. A lot of people can be poor. Some people can become very rich. Some can try to get richer. That's life. It is the struggle, the fight upwards.
I disagree. Let me rephrase the above statement to make my point: 'we should ignore the myriad far more important benefits of society in order to focus on making money.'
In the real world, our social interactions are far more valuable and beneficial to us than money.
Steem social media is a segment of society, and it's economy is not the primary benefit to people.
Mike Tyson said Don King would sell his momma for a dolla. If making a profit on pimping out your mother sounds like a beneficial result to you, I submit you have misunderstood value. I am confident reflecting upon the actual value of society will refine your understanding and reveal that making money is not as important as your statements here indicate.
But that is money. I agree with you. I believe in making money. But what is money? My definition is more generic than your definition. When I say money, I include "SOCIAL INTERACTION" which is what you said and that is money by definition because money is anything of value. I mean anything. My definition is as general as it gets. I hate ROTHSCHILD MONEY. I want fiat money to die. That is FAKE MONEY. I want FAKE MONEY to die. But I do want to compete and to get bigger and bigger. I want to own as many houses as possible. I promote that. I also promote other things as well. But I do not promote slavery or the desire to be as poor as possible.
Love is not money, friend. I don't suppose money evil, but elevating money's value above it's social benefits devalues society, and it's clearly happening on Steem, just as Mike Tyson observed it happens in real life.
Money has real, substantive value, but not more than my neighbors to me. Neither does the value of Steem exceed that of the community here, or the stories and ideas we share. Limiting how we value to financial results in mere economic considerations being factored in to how the social media platform is structured, and this devalues the society and the people comprising it.
The result has been Steem has not retained that society as economic tweaks have enabled substantially staked users to extract the vast majority of rewards. Users with more rational values have left, and the mere financial aspects of Steem have lost economic value as they no longer support, or derive support from, rational society.
Mining Steem can be done more efficiently with bots. Using bots to do so by selling stake/votes devalues people, and social media is people. The focus on the economy of Steem has it bass ackwards. We should be developing communities, and the markets they undertake will create economic value in the money they transact with.
How is love not money? Your definition of money is too specific. I am not against bots. Is there not new community feature for Steem, like Facebook Groups? Do you suggest people leave Steem and go to Weku, Bear Shares, Smoke, or Serey? You might be right that Steem has it backwards. But then again, I support capitalism. If Steem is utilizing free markets, then I would not want socialism in its place.
Experience informs me that if you don't know, I can't explain it to you.
The same goes for granting devices the same rights as people.
May the experiences that reveal the material differences between these things to you be easy, and your distress at the harm you suffer due to not grasping the differences mild. Sadly, the consequences of such misunderstanding can be existential. Loving your toaster may produce lasting burns in sensitive areas, and everlasting regret.
I recommend loving only people, and not conflating love freely given with that paid for by the hour.
Also, not loving toasters.
I believe in giving people the freedom to determine for themselves whether or not they want to do that or not.
The freedom of others ends when it diminishes mine. Adding toasters to electoral mechanisms is not a right. Bots voting destroys human rights. We do not have the authority to grant rights, we're born with them. Toasters aren't born with them, because they aren't born.