RE: New Rules for the Social Media Challenge - Where am I at on HIVE?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Great assessment, thank you so much for replying!
I feel the same way about a lot of things you write there, but my faith in humanity (based on the experiences with blogging and social media) is not very high. I would love to be able to trust humans with power, but the possibility of making money corrupts many of them too easily, leading to a degradation of quality - and I still hope that I'm wrong with that.
In the discussion that I had with acidyo, he stated that the think the abuse of those types auto-vote and down-votes is not that high. So the new rules are more a prevention than a reaction towards a problem that might ocurr. That can be seen as problematic and oppressive, or as progressive, depending on the view-point. I tend towards progressive based on the experiences in other blogging/social media systems.
The rules are indeed very vague, I edited that in as well, nobody really knows what they want there... And what you point out is very interesting - why wasn't there a proposal or a vote for the change? Or maybe I missed it, that still happens a lot.
Same goes for the re-investing. I'm one of many who uses his rewards only for SPL, since I don't even know how to extract them into the real world 😅 And the purchases I made definitely help the SPL-Ecosystem.
My conclusion in a question that I'll think about a little as it is applyable to the real world:
Does the mere possibility of abuse justify the preventitive restriction?
Your post is very good too and I honestly think we both agree for the most part.
My faith in humanity isn't very high either. However, I think it's not too difficult to keep the little guy in check, even if there are many of them, and some might escape whatever anti-abuse system we implement. I'm much more worried about preventing abuse from powerful people. I have gotten a few downvotes from a whale for personal reasons and also DVs from another whale because they wanted to hurt one of my upvoters. There's nothing you can do in those situations. If these were happening to most of my posts, I would stop posting. Imagine a new user getting caught up in these situations. I doubt they would stay. Anyway, this part is a little off-topic, so I'll get back to the topic.
I agree with putting some restrictions. I just don't like how and why it was done. Ever since the DAO made the deal to buy a lot of Hive to be able to get the funding for the Splinterlands proposal I have been of the opinion that it should support Splinterlands posts as much as possible. A vote would be just for the DAO part. I do think it's good to make people not cash out everything. However, I wouldn't consider putting the capital in Splinterlands and even other Hive projects to be "taking out of the ecosystem". The biggest problem is the rules being so vague that someone might get rejected when they don't even know what rules they have to follow.
Oh yeah, I also don't know how I would cash out of Hive and I put everything into Splinterlands. Hopefully, one day, I'll learn how, because if I want to cash out it means prices had increased significantly.