You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Screw Malicious Flagging: 1 Flag Vs 130+ Votes
Flagging should be completely removed. It's not actually effective and causes too much damage. A punishment system doesn't really jive with a "free" and "uncensored" and "decentralized" network anyway.
"decentralized" means there won't be rules to ensure things are "free" or "uncensored", no less fair.
Downvotes are vital to the algorithm that determines how valuable the community as a whole (including each member with their own stake in the platform), deem a specific post.
If you click the flag button, what's the very first reason it gives for potentially flagging a post? "Disagreement with rewards"
This means anyone, for any reason, can upvote or downvote a post. Flags should not be "completely removed"
He said it!
You're my hero.
Or flagging / downvote should cost like on StackOverflow. If you downvote on StackOverflow both the person downvoting and the person being downvotes loose reputation.
As a result you only downvote if the post is so bad that your are prepared to pay the price of the downvote. It still happens because some postings are that bad.
not a bad idea, this is a creative solution to downvotes, even if they cost 10% it would mean something
Just because a subset are hate flagging doesn't mean there isn't a useful purpose for proper flagging. Please, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The only use I can see for flagging is vengeance and retribution. Not exactly the most cherished virtues. If anything it's a band-aid, not a cure.
There may be a good purpose for flagging but in a decentralized blockchain based social media you either have all kinds of flagging or no flags at all. I can write up a program and flag every post that is earning more than say $100 or any criteria the software can detect. Perhaps detect the user's skin color and flag everyone with black skin. That's possible.
If there was a platform like Steem without flagging, I would switch so fast.
You could attach a price tag to downvoting. Then people need to consider: Is the post that bad that I want to pay the price of downvoting.
This was my first thought as well. However imagine someone posted a video of something horrific - a snuff video or child abuse or something. Should there really be a cost associated with flagging that? Is Steemit so inherently a-moral that it wouldn’t put these activities on the same level as any old post or comment you don’t care for, if we made them all cost the same to downvote? I’m still very new here, so I’m not really sure how it all works. It seems like there are lots of people who haven’t been here a long time and know all the lingo and games, but for newbs it’s not really obvious at all.
But those examples are the kind of post where I expect almost everybody being prepared to pay the price of a downvote.
Those examples are so horrid that I expect those with multiple accounts to downvote with every account. No matter the price.
Also the cost of downvote should be in relation to the gain on upvote. A Plankton should be paying far less for the downvote then a wale. That is the only way this idea would work.
Hmm yeah, I guess I'm still too new at all of this to have any real sense for the dynamics, or economics. :D