https://pixabay.com/photos/bicycle-no-hands-ride-bike-young-1279907/
I think these comments in a post by @jacobgadikian are very interesting on the ongoing development of blurt at this time. It is a public conversation between @megadrive and him.
Please go and read the post and comments yourself so my reflection is not out of context for your own understanding.
https://blurt.blog/ama/@jacobgadikian/32prxd-ama
The same way the DAO property rites are protected by the chain is the same way that any user account is protected.
I an see in some ways Jake is saying there is no driver of this train, the train goes were the tracks go.
If as a community we are seeing that we do not like where the tracks go, we need to organize and get a consensus on where it should go and get in front of the train and do that with a fork.
He also states that if a group or an individual get enough share to form that consensus and do so by the current rules of the code there is no problem in that eventuality.
Rather than using our voices to attack each other lets look at how we can make blurt better together. I am still learning about all of this and I can try to use my communication skills to bridge between different groups and understandings. I can do a better job of that and I do regret in some ways being critical of some of the players involved here specifically @double-u especially while there is potentially an opening for conversation and peace. I also did come out and say that I felt it was an attack on blurt, but I have since learned that is not against the rule or code of the platform just a detriment to egos. If an attack were to happen it would mean a lot of blurt being bought to make that happen and that would be a net benefit to me and others on the platform also. Perspective and removing the fear is very important here. I am sorry to those that I may have unfairly judge your motives and seen it as a negative thing.
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@megadrive/let-s-parley
In the mean time I will also continue to trudge along with my curation and posts. I will also think about how each vote can contribute to weakness in the system and being used by farmers and people cheating the system. I will also try to keep my fear in check and the direct connection to that and my keyboard.
Thank you again blurt for an interesting ride.
exactly
It's so hard to find a voice of reason here. I'm glad I found it here.
What I find very nice about your post is your statement that you may have seen things wrong and possibly been unfair....
How nice it would be if some would say that his words were not well chosen or even some would admit that his interests were not conducive to the community and Blurt....
How nice it would be if clear statements were made, fewer insults were uttered, less distrust was present....
You know what? I too will just stay and carry on.....
(Congratulations!...baby.....☺️ )
Thanks yes, we are all wrong sometimes.
I think things will begin to get clearer and I think that blurt can be great again.
Excellent write up. 👏
Thank you for this. 🥓
You are welcome. I am hoping with enough positivity and statements in the community that no accounts will be frozen, free speech and property rights are respected we can get beyond all this nonsense
Congratulations!! your post has been curated by @blurt-network
Use #blurt-network for more upvotes
SHARE THIS POST ON FACEBOOK TO EARN BLURT FROM BLURT-NETWORK
Follow Blurt-networkFacebook page Here
You can delegate blurt power to @blurt-network to support curation
The problems we are experiencing on Blurt are very old. Power goes to people’s heads. Someone creates something beautiful (Megadrive and Jacob) … it attracts Investors. A few investors see incredible potential, a Diamond in the rough, an opportunity to become very rich and they buy a huge stake. They get their friends to join then suddenly think they should run the place. They start by attacking the Founders and developers… this has been going on for a very very long time. On Steemit, Hive and Blurt. You need to just mute these people and enjoy your life.
Power goes to the founders head tho too, too many times they start saying ‘ my site’ or thinking it’s theirs and forgetting blockchain is supposed to be a community with no middleman in power. The foundation is an appointed board but but I believe just to act in the interests of the community. It shouldn’t rly be making its own decisions irrespective of community opinion. That’s at least how I look at it.
Are you able to say what "the interest of the community" is?
Do you think a board can do this?
I think on big things there could be public votes like how proposals work on hive/steemit, one thing I do think they have right but base it on user numbers not wallet stake. If people don't bother voting within a time frame, they don't count.
Failing that MD for example could make a post with the problem and what he is thinking of doing and see what the reaction is, as opposed to telling people he has done it and everyone going crazy and him backtracking and realising it was really gung ho and emotionally reactive. I think at least putting some feelers out prior to big decisions that affect the community like pushing off the two biggest investors is a start.
The problem at hand cannot be solved by voting. It is about "being able to say what you want". Free speech cannot be enforced or banned by voting on free speech. People have cut their teeth on this in Steemit, Hive and now here, and there is no solution to it. If you formulate a proposal on this, you will find that you would have to draw up a set of rules in which you would have to write down what is still legitimate as free speech and what is not. How are you going to do that and then find agreement with the many others?
You can only ever decide for yourself what you want to say and what you would rather not say.
To counter this problem, on Hive, for example, the topic communities and their operators have set up their own rules, within which they announce, for example, competitions that contain certain "do's" and "don'ts". These small central operations operate within the large sphere and anyone who wants to can set up their own interest group and make the house rules public there. In this way, what is considered legitimate in one house may already be considered a breach of good manners in another.
For the big picture, however, this is not possible because interests, cultural backgrounds, habits and world views differ greatly.
By its very nature, every election will not go out as "everyone agreed". So even if an election result has taken place, you don't just get rid of those who voted down a proposal. In the usual political business, this is called the opposition. In fact, it would be dictatorial to put something to the vote and all those who voted no would then have to keep their mouths shut. If you think about it, the majority voting principle is already fraught with many weaknesses.
In any case, no election and no proposal will ever prevent conflicts from continuing. It is therefore probably a question of how everyone finds a way for themselves to deal with existing conflicts and to see something in them that allows them to mature personally.
I do honour majority votes tho and some do not. I wanted trump in but when Biden was in I just shut up about it and even tho I’m not sure the vote wasn’t rigged tbh I just never mentioned it again rly and gave Biden his chance. The left wouldn’t stop whinging for about 4 years, protesting, trying to get him removed etc. I don’t like a few powerful people getting a say because they are wealthier Than others but if I am in the minority I don’t actually mind conceeding on things to a point. Free speech is different to rules tho as free speech is needed to challenge rules and make people think and change their minds. Free speech is always needed. Banning a few trigger words feels ok but that’s just could grow to 1000 quickly with how offended ppl get hah
The hive communities would work if they didn’t all have to be subjected to the rich overlords who can just downvote them on irrespective of being part of a community they don’t even subscribe to.
I’m not massively against some basic rules in place myself, I know that some people want no rules but I don’t mind each site having irw own rules. My maint thing is it’s enforced through code not one persons opinion. So say for example there is a list of banned words or activities then that is monitored by code. Let’s say a certain word just won’t show up when typed then people can still talk about it, talk around it, talk about the same topic but they just have to avoid the word. I know some people still won’t like that but it means it stays within the law pretty much and applies to everyone. It’s not that some ppl can use the word just cause theubhave more stake than someone else. the thing I personally don’t like is one or a small group of ppl being able to completely control and dominate speech and payouts based on personal opinion.
Basically my stance also. Nice conversation here people. Thanks.
I was trying to say that you can't solve the problem of agreeing on a set of rules and free speech centrally. There is no code that can do that.
As soon as you explicitly write down a set of rules and want to make them applicable to everyone, you become a totalitarian dictator faster than you would like. Rules are never accepted equally by all people, especially when they come from different worldviews.
The people who know this will not want there to be one set of rules for ALL, but will avoid pretending that such is possible. The rules are implicit in each of us, but as soon as you try to make them explicit, you open Pandora's box.
In contrast, if you think this problem is solvable, you will take a yes or no position yourself and then try to get others to do likewise. One will push, coerce, or seduce and entice them to take a clear stance. Those who think that their free speech is being suppressed will look for culprits who will also pretend that there are no alternatives and it will end in the destruction of what the parties to the conflict say they want to preserve.
It is about looking for alternatives, for strategies that are less obviously looking for open battle and more about finding a road that is equally passable for the parties to the conflict. But in politics, everyone wants to force you to choose. As if there were no alternatives. Which is usually not true.
When you speak of the communities and their operators on Hive as overlords, I understand what you mean. When it comes to the choice of topics, there are certain taboos that exist everywhere in the world. If you don't accept a taboo and write against it publicly, it would be naive to expect the operators to reward you for breaking the taboo, wouldn't it?
Sometimes it is wiser not to speak up, but to keep a low profile and wait for a better time to do or say what you want.
But one can also deliver one's messages and stay true to oneself in a way that does not antagonise one fighting side or the other. Some ingenuity is certainly required in doing so.
I think we al have different ideas of centralisation I am not as opposed to centralisation by code cause every individual site has its own quirks and ways of working. Even for example uploading an nft has certain rules. Blurt does have a premise of free speech on its home page which, it should not if it is not free speech. But if it takes that down then I think it’s ok to have some rules on your site. For me decentralisation is they are managed by code and listed in advance of investing in / joining site and warning given if they are changing. If a site wants to include some ban words or behaviours I would definitely trust ai to be more fair than one Human. I mean everything has rules to a point. Even no downvote button is changing code to change the rules of the platform. Without some structure nothing would exist. The problem we have here is that things like vts seem to be ok for some people to do to a certain level but not for others and then some people just are considered to do it too much Dependent on two or three peoples opinions. These sites lately actually make fb look better by the day lol at least the owner is too busy to rly interfere personally:
The community owners were always fine it was the handful of overlords that go above them that were not.
I mean I disagree on that bit, maybe it depends on the person, to me being inauthentic to stay earning a few £ was shit. Personally I never expressed barely one opinion over on hive, I was like a shadow of my true self keeping my head down incase something caused the downvote tsunami till towards the end when I just got sick of it all And exploded cause I was ready to leave , before that all I did was post pretty pictures and inane comments with no depth. I can’t really sit and watch other people get bullied though who got personally nuked for no real reason so I did end up speaking up and of course getting punished, which led on to a much darker path as once you start you start lol I think that kind of environment actually drives you somewhat insane 😬. I witnessed these ppl back in 2017 in private chat group I somehow found myself in just picking random newbies for fun to nuke to 0, they didn’t even do anything wrong these whales just ‘found’ something after they already decided to nuke them. They were essentially just bored and found it hillarious to do it and pick on anything about them from their English skills to their content and in the public eye these same people pretend to be good Samaritans curating content. I personally felt that way of being was absolutely miserable it felt like living in the world of 1984 where you had to pretend to be one of the other drones just working for the queen bees or you came under the spotlight. I see the way people talk who are only on hive and it’s obvious indoctrination they say things like ‘they might let you post’ ‘they might forgive you’ ‘they won’t let you back on’ lol who is they?! Imagine a site where 10 or so rich people are called ‘they’ and dictate who is allowed to be forgiven and able to post on a platform. I mean it sstupid anyways anyone can just start 15 anonymous accounts on hive if they want to. I can’t see hive ever gaining mass adoption while it has a downvote with money connected to it; even YouTube had to stop showing its downvotes and it already rewarded you financially for downvotes equally to upvotes. That’s actually the fairest way to have a downvote button. YouTube is gold in that way rewards for up and downvote. Cause irrespective of if you liked it you spent time watching it lol. That’s more decentralised to me. Another example is one guy used to downvote me repeatedly cause I also post on Steemit. However someone richer than me farmed steemit daily and no one every downvoted him for it. Why? Cause he was richer lol this is the kind of thing I don’t like. If a site wants to start up and say ok you can only post content here and it triggers if your posting elsewhere and demonetises you as a code... fair enough. If its just a bunch of humans downvoting some and not downvoting others for the same thing then that’s when it’s favourtisim based on personal ties, vengeance or wealth. These sites are honestly starting to make fb look better day by day tbh lol.
I even myself got downvoted a couple of times or certainly had people complain cause I took out 50 percent of my earnings there and powered up the other half. That’s of course because they want to leave everyone holding the bags at the bottom while they trade and exploit the price. Look at all the ppl who could buy family homes on there two months ago that now can buy a car after 5 years of hard work. They have almost been trained to work for the queens and punish ppl who want to cash out whilst holding their own coins down to zero most likely. I mean how can you tell ppl not to cash out? Everyone is going to cash out at some point in their life, unless they just want to die with the money there in tokens, who is this great overlord who thinks that they know the exact month and year and second thwt it suddenly becomes ok to cash out lol.
I don’t even know if the words decentralised as such But I mean bitcoin was set up with rules too in the form of structure of how to trade it / buy it etc everything hasn’t some kind of structure to me it’s the personal interference over code that’s making these platforms unfair. Maybe I am not fully understanding the word decentralisation but either way I just aspire to a platform that’s equal rights for everyone irrespective of wealth, opinions, friendship groups etc. Sure you can do better building your account if you have or build friends and money but you can’t be excluded from building. If people constantly express very negative opinions then I guess they just won’t get many followers or maybe there is a whole circle or people who like the negative opinions and they can all share back and forwards.