RE: Untangling the Gordian Knot that is Steem Ethics
"I do not see a difference."
I know that there are many facts I am unaware of. I upvote manually, because I am certain that society is people, and even though I upvote every #informationwar post and comment I see, I know there are many I do not see and upvote, because I am merely human. I can grasp that my beneficial impact is therefore limited to what I personally see and impact. How this adds vigor and strengthens human society I cannot perceive fully, but because the principle is sound, I am confident it does.
I am aware of my limited human nature, and accept there are truths I do not know. I am confident in the underlying principle, and am confident that the truth is true even when I do not know of it.
"I'm like the big boss or slave master."
I stand on principle, and as a result do not have the potential to be as harmful as an overlord. That is a good thing. Limiting my impact is a good thing, when that impact would be harmful.
I stand on the principle of freewill, freedom, private property rights, etc. Specifically, I want the freedom to do what I want, good or bad.
Twetch
What do you think about Twetch and do they have a better system than what Steemit has? I agree that we should always try to limit bad behavior which includes the voting bots. Trying to find ways like you said to reward real human interaction and better quality in posts, comments, content, etc, of course.