RE: Key Take Aways from HIVEFEST 2020 & My suggestions & My proposal to the Community

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

Are you suggesting we do away with downvotes?

If we adopt the blurt model of dealing with abuse, I'll announce my departure from this platform.

This does not require a hardforking solution.

I like hivewatchers and more funding to them, but the black lists, and perhaps some more tools are good enough.



0
0
0.000
7 comments
avatar
(Edited)

Are you suggesting we do away with downvotes?

Nope, not at all. I do believe we need the downvote button for any account to be able to use without agreements with others.

But I think we could do with the possibility to remove an account, or block it completely. It shall be used with great care since I do not want HIVE to be seen as or become a platform of censoring, but some accounts just needs to be blocked indefinitely and some other temporarily. A multi dimensional governance model could handle such function. Shall it be based on 20 accounts to nuke an account? Maybe not, maybe it shall be based on 100 accounts, I don't know.

We can think of using this multi dimensional consensus model for other things as well. Maybe we get another layer of witnesses to oversee the activities of the chain witnesses and give their value to each individual witness based on a defined set of parameters? This will help the community, all those who don't know anything about witnesses, to determine whom they will give their votes. Kinda like the parliament and senate in political systems. If need be, we create a third layer, and forth. I don't know.

I just got inspired by this extra dimension of governance used by BLURT while I'm also thinking of all the issues we see with abuse in general and the amount of users that never change their witness votes and even when they want to change, they have hard times to determine who to give their vote to.

We are still a small community, but what if we are 100 times larger? We need mechanism more than we have today to make sure we 1) grow 2) will not get out of control. Multi dimensional consensus based governance could help these to aspects and make everything more decentralised and 'democratic' in a practical sense.

I have no solution myself yet, I just see opportunities. I truly believe we shall start debating the fact we could do something with re-using the consensus system we have for our base layer, to implement a multi dimensional governance system instead of the (more or less) single dimension we have around our chain.

Note that 1) I do like Hivewatchers as well and trust these guys 2) Hivewatchers is a centralised team, therefore not following the ideals and rules of decentralisation. Do we like to keep it like this for the long term? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe we need more Hivewatchers teams working independently? Maybe we implement a governance system that can nuke Hivewatchers and simiar accounts/teams when they become abusive? Maybe we shall implement a governance system for all those who feel they are falsely accused by Hivewatchers and leave the final judgement to such decentralised governance system rather then to a central team? Even the blacklists are centralised implementations at the moment. Maybe the governance system shall drive and decide for who gets onto the blacklist?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well, I'm glad we see eye to eye on keeping downvotes. I don't really like to think about changes in how content censorship should work with those off the table which is why I don't like Blurt.
However, I do see value in having a system that can more easily remove extreme content. I'm not a fundamentalist libertarian either and obviously, some content is completely unwanted here. This level of censorship would require a hard fork to implement.
You are right that there is no real safe way to give anyone the keys to that. One safe way could be to keep a list of stuff that is to be permanently removed and do away with it every hard fork (give them 30 days minimum to appeal). The list could be made public and a voting system could be in place with people being able to delegate their vote. I would still recommend some control over the list. For example certain nomination requirements and certain people with authority to manage it.
I think giving people 30 days to appeal would buy them time if they are falsely accused by hive watchers. It will give plenty of time to save the content to republish if they clear their name after.
Another problem I've always thought about is when the abusers get away with months of abuse before getting caught. There is no whitelist to start publishing and the cost to create a new account is at most a couple of dollars which can easily be recovered in a single post.
Perhaps a way to verify new users would be great, as well as a trust score. This could all be done via 3rd party and completely optional. It would be of great use to the larger curators who actually care about the content they vote for. The way I envision this is we vote for a 3rd party side account for new users until they are verified and trusted. I think anyone serious about producing content could wait a couple of weeks until the rewards are handed over and then trust is established.
Too many people are milking the system. They are hard to deal with. The corruption wasn't fixed with Hive. There doesn't seem to be much motivation or enthusiasm to clean it up. The price of Hive and overall market cap isn't as good as it ought to be.

0
0
0.000
avatar

For example certain nomination requirements and certain people with authority to manage it.

Agree. I think we shall think of solution in which the authorities can be determined in ways some democracy is applied. A voting system is one way, a consensus system could be another way (the later is more like how we vote for witnesses and leaves room for anybody to enter the decision making level). It may have downsides as well, like a few whales can decide to push a user into the authorities and many users dont vote, or when they vote they dont adjust their votes. The endless voting for witnesses is something blocktrades and howo are working onb to chancge.

Another problem I've always thought about is when the abusers get away with months of abuse before getting caught.

I've seen quite a few. Those users with high rep starting to recycle their posts, I hate the most. Someone with high rep recieved already quite a bit of funds from the reward pool, so they should know better what is good for the community and its growth. I see quite a few first day users abusing the reward pools. Very recently Jaynie was uncovered by Marky. I have my own personal view: Marky is 100% right to take all her rewards away on all open posts. She should know better. We need a centralised list (website) providing all sort of information about HIVE, including a walls-of-shame and walls-of-fame amongst others.

Perhaps a way to verify new users would be great, as well as a trust score.

Verification would be great, with ID and all please! :) Obviously by an external service. ID information could be left outside the HIVE eco system. Requires a lot of API calls to such verification service though, but the tech is all possible. The willingness amongst key HIVE people much less. Most shit on what Voice requires. Most want to stay 100% anonymous. But anonymity and lowering abuse levels dooesn't go hand in hand, ie they are contradictive by nature.

I think anyone serious about producing content could wait a couple of weeks until the rewards are handed over and then trust is established.

Agree, though it'll be an extra hurdle for onboarding new users. Other reward based socila networks may benefit from the users who dont have patience. But yea, certainly something to consider.

Too many people are milking the system.

Absolutely right. See it every single day, and sometimes get totally frustrated, espacially when I take my personal case into the equation. As a minimum I spend at least 1000 hours a year on HIVE, while others spending just a fraction of it on HIVE, are getting dollars to 10s of dollars on their posts through auto voters. Thats where the abuse levels are thge highest I think. Those who recieve serious value through auto voters.

This level of censorship would require a hard fork to implement.

We shall move away from HF, like Blocktrades and Howo mentioned during Hivefest. Every HF requires attention by exchanges and all dApp owners. Other solutions needs to be found. Maybe a parameter in the API to the chain giving abuse indication and levels. Its then up to the frontend teams if they incorporate rules around abusive content and users.

cost to create a new account is at most a couple of dollars which can easily be recovered in a single post

Is it? For some maybe, but for most earning a few dollars is mighty difficult :) Not for those with super cool auto voting rewards, but unfortunatelly many dont have them, like myself hahaha But yea, I understand where you coming from :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Very recently Jaynie was uncovered by Marky.

The other day I saw a downvote, I had no idea why. Thanks for clearing it up. I trust his work and can no longer support Jaynie. I assumed it was just some personal dispute which I tend to avoid.

I don't like post recyclers and other low effort work.
I've heard it's okay if you change it significantly, but I just get the impression people asking are looking to do the most minimal amount of work possible.

I know you put a lot of effort into what you do around here and so do quite a few people. I am the same. For me, I cannot do low-quality stuff, especially because I do receive auto votes. It took a lot of hard work and effort to get a reputation of not producing the lowest effort stuff.

No one is entitled to an upvote.

Verification would be great, with ID and all please!

I've used Civic before and I hear Neo is doing something as well. I'm sure Hive could reach out and make a deal with them, it's better than focusing on yet another exchange listing or wasting our own resources to save a little trouble. In my opinion, people can pay to be verified (and decide how much information they want to confirm as 'verified', since it will likely attract larger votes. At the very least confirming an account is a 'verified human individual', would be good.

As a minimum I spend at least 1000 hours a year on HIVE, while others spending just a fraction of it on HIVE, are getting dollars to 10s of dollars on their posts through auto voters. That's where the abuse levels are the highest I think. Those who receive serious value through auto voters.

I already mentioned, I also put in effort. These days I don't spend as much time on Hive as you, but as you can see I only make infrequent posts. It's not like I'm knocking out a 50HBD post once a day. Also, I probably spent 6 hours on that post, lol.

Autovoters are an interesting problem in my mind. It's why I try to maintain consistency. It's also why a lot of people have alt accounts so they can do more trivial posts on one account. I think I may do this one day.

I still don't know how to handle this, but there are people watching which is great. In any case, since the bid bots were destroyed, things have slowly become better and better. I don't think we are close to the situation being acceptable yet. The external investment reflects that Hive isn't quite where it should be yet.

We shall move away from HF, like Blocktrades and Howo mentioned during Hivefest.

I was aware of this. I'm not sure of the frequency they think is good. That's why I said 6months. If it is 1 time a year so be it. The point is god awful content and accounts do need to be removed entirely from time to time. I think strengthening community features and having more of the rewards as a second layer could help this.

For example, look at the communities with tons of abuse (or low effort content), they couldn't create a token with value if their lives depended on it. Sadly, they still impact the price of Hive.

for most earning a few dollars is mighty difficult :) Not for those with super cool auto voting rewards, but unfortunatelly many dont have them, like myself hahaha But yea, I understand where you coming from :)

It's so hard to judge what actually took effort and what didn't. Also, some people just build a reputation. Others are posting content they made a long time before Hive existed. Or worst, stuff they didn't make or just post a link and copy paste.

Naturally, certain stuff attracts more rewards. I do like the ability to set beneficiaries or just send straight up hive to people who I support but don't necessarily want to upvote.

I don't even have a lot of HP these days, but still have a lot of account tickets. I would probably give away account tickets if it was an issue for someone.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't like post recyclers and other low effort work. I've heard it's okay if you change it significantly, but I just get the impression people asking are looking to do the most minimal amount of work possible.

Those who ask, ask it for a reason. Hopefully the right reasons, but as you pointed out, maybe for the wrong reasons.

I cannot do low-quality stuff, especially because I do receive auto votes. It took a lot of hard work and effort to get a reputation of not producing the lowest effort stuff.

Hahaha... When I try to do something 'low quality' it almost never turns out to be that level.

I think strengthening community features and having more of the rewards as a second layer could help this.

Rewards on second layer is definately a way to go. Sometimes I even believe we shall remove content rewards with HIVE, ie moving content rewarding to the second layer completely.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hahaha... When I try to do something 'low quality' it almost never turns out to be that level.

I'm the same. A simple post for me is very different than others.

The main point is when people are no longer noobs, they shouldn't be trying to get away with low effort stuff.

Rewards on second layer is definately a way to go.

Yeah, it just needs some very careful thought, especially if we go 100%. I do think it should be like ETH POS or BTC mining rewards and a very slow procedure where we can go back if necessary. Anyway, that's a completely different topic.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The main point is when people are no longer noobs, they shouldn't be trying to get away with low effort stuff.

💯 agree!

Yeah, it just needs some very careful thought, especially if we go 100%. I do think it should be like ETH POS or BTC mining rewards and a very slow procedure where we can go back if necessary.

Also 💯 agree. I do hope Blocktrades and Howo are thinking of this. I came across too many who dont want to see HIVE content rewards go, but these maybe those who are will established HIVE reward receivers. I wonder how our witnesses are thinking about this topic. I know, I dont necesarily want to see more HIVE rewards to go to the top 21 witnesses. HIVE shall be used for other means, to increase the HIVE ecosysystem and all.

NJOY the holidays! 👻🍷🎶🙃

0
0
0.000