Out of curiosity...

_{Caveat: I am not a coder.}

There is a Twitter campaign being driven by @theycallmedan trying to take advantage of the technical shortcomings of Gab and Parler. Now, both of these platforms are geared toward one extreme of the public discourse and as such, have a polarizing userbase. While not everyone would want this kind of position to dominate on Hive, I also think that if we are going to defend freedom of speech, we have to defend everyone's freedom of speech.

Having said that, there is what I see as an opportunity embedded in an opportunity to further enhance the user experience of all on Hive. One of the problems with the Hive experience is that because everything is stored on the same blockchain, we see a lot of what we don't want to see. However, as far as I know, this doesn't have to be the case, as content of transactions could be hidden through Custom JSONs in the same way that Splinterlands does it.

This would mean that an entire interface could be built that broadcasts its contents in custom JSONs so that it only appears in full form in its own interface, allowing for all other interfaces the opportunity to hide or show it, if they choose. This would mean that an independent interface could be built that interacts with the Hive blockchain for its immutability as it could be possible to recall these transactions later, even if the original interface stops serving it.

This would also allow for a far more granular separation of content, where for example, an interface could create custom communities within its borders, so that they are communities on Hive, but they only appear where an interface calls on them. This means that users can populate an interface with tailored content niches that do not encroach on other interfaces. This would allow for customized interfaces that still allow for enduser control over how they experience it.

Plus of course, future (or current using Hive-Engine) secondary tokenization can happen that allows for a community to be on Hive but build itself with a far greater degree of independence, where if they can generate value, that value can be used to maintain the platform as well as be distributed throughout the community in a similar model to Hive.

If this setup was built into a white label template that could be customized and reskinned, it would allow for very fast setup and implementation of any number of communities to be built on the second layer of Hive. This means that every time there is the opportunity presented to onboard a web 2.0 community, we are ready. Doing this allows for more sensitive content buckets to be built, bringing in more privacy and market segmentation, whilst still maintaining the core benefits of creating on the Hive blockchain.

While nothing will stop the same people from posting on the main feeds, through the usage of stake, it will be organized over time based on incentive and support, where people will generally spend their time where their time is appreciated and valued. In time, this will start to sift content creation and experience increasingly onto the second layer of the Hive blockchain as has been proposed by various groups, but in an organic way through the development of strong communities, rather than a hard shift into a contentious change.

As said, I am not a coder and I do not know all of the pros and cons of doing this, but if we are focusing on developing the second layer of Hive, we also have to build the tools to enable them to form, build and be maintained. We are a highly diverse blockchain already and there is value in building the profile to be more inclusive, but still sensitive to the user experience of individuals and expectations.

While there will always be opinions of others we don't agree with, we have to remember that not everyone is going to agree with us either. The only way for us to really be able to change the opinions of others, is open up to the risk of change ourselves.

Any thoughts on any of this?

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]