You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Censorship: Why All Blockchain Projects Should Join Steem (especially Status)
Preventing censorship is very important and I think we're all with you there. Decentralization is a critical element. Other projects should be joining Steem for sure. That said, if everything is left up to the masses, then abusers (scammers, spammers, bidbots, etc.) will fill that void and destroy the user experience for those masses fairly quickly, as we've seen here. With a few simple tweaks by the benevolent entity that operates this site, it could be a lot more fun for a lot more people to use.
Steem should be decentralized; Steemit should use some common sense to better manage its site for the vast majority of the users.
Indeed.
Same applies even more strongly to decentralized systems. Indeed, it empowers the most flawed people to run amok with their abuse, crime and scams, with no laws or checks in place. Neither @donkeypong nor I really need to point out the overwhelming amount of evidence for Steemians only behaving in their own self-interests, rather than making Steem a valuable content creation and curation platform.
With centralized systems, there's always competition where the less flawed systems has the potential to win. I hope that's exactly what Communities and SMT will achieve here on Steem.
Beyond that, there needs to be some basic common sense measures to better organize Steemit.com to be better for discovering valuable content. Remember, what consumers really want is creating and consuming good content.
there's that line again: 'good content'. that's surely in the eye of the beholder in a world of free speech. it implies some element of control needed over the 'bad' content.
A lot of the content on youtube has great content, but it's not got the most views. You've got to make a personal effort to engage with a certain kind of 'good' content that is good for you, that informs you, or rewards you outside of it, in the real world.
Agreed, what is good or bad depends on objectivity, not subjectivity. It depends on who makes the rules, on who the judges are. If we are our own judges of each other's content, comments, etc, then we all determine, define, what is good content and what is bad content like you said, in the eye of the beholder, with all doing what is right in his or her own eyes as mentioned in the Bible before the time of the Judges.
there are criteria you could write down to help define what is good or bad content, but this would only go in a certain direction. It's better for bad content. Good content could be informational, but not popular or engaging. Not so easy.
Interesting.
An interesting article. I subscribed to you. Subscribe to me, we will be friends
Hi @liberosist, I have found Steemit Inc. not interested in doing anything to remove the recently discovered flaws with Steemit. I have almost left the platform due to its inherent and persistent flaws. Platform was good. The people behind it let it be ruined. I am here because of the sane voices like yours.
When I joined Steemit in June 2017, I found it to be a gift economy. It has, for best part of last 7-8 months, turned into a bad user experience after invasion of bots. Steemit is not for the masses anymore, I feel.