A ctime soliloquy – Thanks, thoughts, theory and ...other stuff....

Let me start with 'the thanks'.

To ctime – there is no animosity, sarcasm, bitterness, or passive aggressiveness in this 'thanks'.

Over the last years and months of the débâcle called DpoS 'social media' block chain, these two accounts ( i.e 'the polish contingent') have show support for my work and content.

The reasons behind this support may, or may not, have been misunderstood by myself.
And that's fine.
It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
'Actions speak louder than words' – and their actions spoke loud enough for me.

By no longer supporting accounts that do not adhere to their initiative of 'sending to null', or not 'powering down' , is fine also.
These new 'rules' lead to the thoughts that I may have (very probably) misunderstood the motivations behind the prior upvoting actions – which is, also, completely fine.

So it seems that I will no longer be receiving upvotes from these accounts.
Which is ALSO fine (if that is the case).

After 'the ctime initiative, I decided to try a month of 'playing that game', just to see how it materially worked out for smaller accounts (like my own).
I managed to do a week.
Lol...oops.

It was as much as I could stomach, in all honesty.

I call it the 'idiot tax', and for good reason (if my theory is correct).

Oh, before I give you those thoughts, here's a definition or two of 'the idiot tax'...(bold inserts my own, for humor...)
Idiot Tax
1/ A voluntary tax levied on people who don't understand probability.

2/ A self-imposed tax that frequently occurs following the consumption of copious amount of alcohol hopium.

Back to 'the theory'...

The blurt 'social media platform' is either :
A/
A social media platform that operates, roughly, under a free market system.
This has been shown NOT to be the case (ideology, fragile ego's, and a very childish - non commercial approach - to growing a social media platform).
If the aim was a growing platform then metrics of interactions (conflict and agreement) would be promoted, not penalized.
'White lists' (that are really blacklists), and the attempted actions to 'freeze accounts' by those the large stake/ witnesses have uber fragile ego, issues.

Fragile ego's + the power to express that ego fragility through action, resulted in the attempted actions against my own account (for example), white lists, and 'behind the scenes discussions' to find ways to oust me from the platform – but in a very 'inclusive and diverse way', don;t ya know? lol
This is not a business minded, ego-less decision - and is, in fact, antithetical to anyone WANTING to grow a social media platform which thrives on difference, conflict, fun, and a wide variety of interesting material to consume.

B/
An ideologically driven, social experiment (vis-a vis WEF's 'stakeholder capitalism model).
The above description in regards to punitive actions towards those that do not 'tow the collectivist line' would support this as a being a distinct possibility.

C/
A financial product.... (one that's looking for a market that doesn't exist, imo).
If this is the motivation behind creating the pretence of a social media platform , then not only is it deceptive in it's marketing, it's INTENTIONALLY misleading to the individuals and accounts who use it on a day to day basis...and could, potentially, even be fraudulent - depending on the motivations behind those creating such a chain.
*in the DPoS system, people laying block chain data via posts, comments/interactions, is ESSENTIAL to keep the block chain operational.

A + B - cannot work unless the aim is collectivist propaganda and psychological manipulation/gas-lighting/control.

A + C - Can work, but only if 'A' is seen as both the engine and the fuel in which to realize 'C'.
ie. By creating a market for the tokens to have real utility and therefore, value.
If this was/is the case – then it would WANT varied discussions, and a wide range of topics, argument, with lots of interactions,etc.
The 'idiot tax initiative' tells me that this is NOT the motivation behind 'the platform'.

A+B+C - Cannot work, due to the many opposing dynamics of varying accounts and their own individual ambitions within the chain.

B+C – Can work, but only if the premise of 'the collective will create it's own value' is taken as being a valid position.
Historical examples and a basic understanding of simple economics and human behavioral psychology would also invalidate that juvenile and, to be honest - downright silly, flawed premise.

The reason I show the above scenarios is because I do not know the motivations behind accounts.
The actions shown in regards to my own account, vis a vis the accounts named above, could fulfil very different goals and ambitions than my own.

The initiatives shown over this last week or two, (% to null, etc), would indicate that the accounts actions are not in alignment with my own hopes for the block chain.

Which is fine.

I consider it as a journey – one where you travel a road with others, both seemingly headed in the same direction and mutually appreciating the others company while on that road.
Then comes a fork in the road, and it's only in that moment that the difference in the destinations of travel are revealed.
And so the companions who have happily travelled together for a while, then decide to go their own separate ways.

And that's fine.

So what are the motivations behind the idiot tax ?

It really depends on how you see the time-line in regards of 'the DPoS experiment'.

IF you think that it has longevity in its current form, then the idiot tax would enrich those large account holders IMMENSLEY. (while only marginally benefiting those with small accounts).
The percentage - in terms of gain, is the same – the actual $ value, is worlds apart.

If longevity of the the block chain is expected, and price goes up (it can hardly go down too much, not without the witnesses turning off their servers), the the incentive for the idiot tax becomes apparent.
For the large account holders.
$100 with a 10% rise in value = $110....$10 dollars....
$200,000 with a 10% rise = $220,000...20 THOUSAND dollars...
A bit of a difference in real monetary terms.

I can understand the incentive behind large accounts wishing to limit the tokens in the hope the value increases due to scarcity.
It sounds completely logical to me.
Remember that on DPoS block chain - and seeing it as a purely financial product – WHAT DATA GETS LAID DOWN ONTO THE CHAIN, IS 100% IRRELVANT.
The only important part of this is for the people to keep creating material (data), and interacting.
I.e - quality content is meaningless in this scenario.
The disincentive's created by this 'idiot tax' (those that do no understand probability), results in psychological coercion, ethical paradox, and moral confusion.

I will NOT be psychologically coerced.
Psychological coercion: (excerpts)... brackets are my own so as to illustrate the comparisons in relation to 'the idiot tax'
https://theneurotypical.com/psychological_coercion.html

The tactics of psychological coercion often involve anxiety and stress, (threat of withdrawal of upvoting unless conditions are met).

...Establishment of control over the victim's social environment, time, and sources of social support by creating social isolation; removing contact with family and friends who promote self-esteem, independence, positivity, and sense of well-being.
Economic controls may contribute. (no uvpoting, no sweets).

...The victim is made to feel like a "bad" person. (not doing as I wish?...then no uvpoting, no sweets)
...Efforts are designed to destabilize and undermine the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, world view, emotional control and defense mechanisms.
(is this a social media platform looking to grow, or is it something else entirely ?)

...The subject questions, doubts, and reinterprets his or her life and adopts a new "reality."
(ok, I'll agree to have my rewards reduced, and my work devalued, if I receive upvotes due to my obedience).

...Creating a sense of powerlessness by subjecting the victim to intense and frequently confusing, conflicting actions and situations which undermine the victim's self-confidence and judgement.
(I thought this was a free market of ideas social media platform, and would be supported by accounts who share my values and perspectives).

Creating strong, aversive, emotional arousals in the subject by reactions such as intense humiliation, (do as I say or their will be consequences) ... loss of privilege, (no upvotes for you)... social isolation, social status changes, (not part of 'the in crowd)...intense guilt, (am I wrong?) anxiety, and manipulation.

...Intimidation of the victim by implied power, size, voice amplitude, or implied threat. (no upvotes without compliance to my rules).

Psychological coercion can be applied to such a degree that the victim's capacity to make informed or free choices becomes inhibited. (loss of support by not agreeing)
The cumulative effect of psychological coercion can be an even more effective form of undue influence than pain, torture, drugs or the use of physical force or threats.
(every post you use to 'opt in' to the 'new initiative', requires YOU to take an action of self subjugation – the action of changing your own reward settings, and getting YOU to choose to take less for your own work).

My theory (its only a theory), is this...

'ctime and co.' have a good idea that the price is going to tank and are trying their best to prevent it happening - to be able to trade/liquidize their tokens at the best price possible.
I see nothing wrong with this strategy !......
IF YOU SEE THE PLATFORM PURELY AS A FINANCIAL INSTUMENT, AND ONLY THAT.

I see no other logical explanation or aspect to 'the idiot tax' decision.

Because I do not see any longevity in the blurt 'social media' platform with it's current governance structure, and 'leadership' (lolololol) mindset, and levles of competence, I can only conclude that the strategy employed is NOT to increase token price long term, but to liquidate tokens at the best price possible.
(Respect for that, my ex travellers).

If I'm incorrect in my theory - and it IS meant as a strategy to raise the token price (long term), then I'm afraid can't offer the same kind of respect.

Why?
Because I think 'you're' incorrect in the understanding of how incentives work, and
how human psychology is affected by authoritarian diktats, and how any type of psychological coercion will only have negative consequences on a social media block chain. (less motivation > less effort > less interest > demoralization > going elsewhere online...).

So, that's that.
If I'm wrong, great !
I have an opportunity to learn something.

If I'm correct – in either the short term or long term scenario - I feel no satisfaction or vindication – but it's a crying shame for all those who 'bent the knee' and subjugated themselves to an authority all in the hopium of 'something better' in the future....

But wait !..there's more.

I haven’t finished my fucking gratitude, yet!

Again, I mean this without sarcasm, passive aggression - or anything negative, in fact.

This last week of my 'willing subjugation' as an experiment, has really motivated me in a way I never felt on blurt before.

And 'it was nothing personal' for me, as they say.

The idiot tax affected me.
And never let an opportunity go to waste.

So 'a big thank you' once more...
As far as blurt itself goes, (and my now minimal upvotes) – it means that my own psychological freedom has been untethered.
There are many things I never wrote about, or I wrote in such a way that 'calmed down' my expression of thought - out of respect for ctime and what I thought were aligned 'shared values'

That's not a criticism of them in the slightest.
It is my error of extrapolating incorrect information based on others peoples actions.
If anything, is a criticism of myself and no one else.
(There's no ego struggles with being wrong).

I have no issue with being wrong – oh, and for any fragile egos reading this, then yes - your fear of 'being wrong' (or appearing wrong) is one of your biggest problems in life, and one that will guide you down wrong paths forever, unless you address it.
I can help you with that if you can find the courage to contact me (via email).

My opportunity to capitalize on blurt is not on blurt...as such.
….and will become clearer over this next period of time, if the server lights don't go off first...

So I'll say it once more to finish off this segment of soliloquy.
THANK YOU @ctime - my fellow traveller, for a time.
But with this fork in the road, it appears like it's time for you to go your ways, and for me to go mine...
You are not my enemy.

'It's nothing personal', as ctime so accurately stated earlier this month.

...I'm also pretty sure that these accounts are far too intelligent and NOT so 'ego fragile' as to incorporate ideas as being an intrinsic part of an actual identity. (let's eave that mental illness to the low IQ libtards, eh?..lol)
I will be lampooning the initiative in my own way...

Who knows, maybe we will, once again, be fellow travelers on the same road at some point in the future....

...it makes me a little sad after such a long journey together.
Such is life...
I hope your that your new initiatives will give you ALL that you expected from them, and more !

Ok, with that little bit of sentimentality over with...lets saddle up !

---

_{Posted from https://blurtlatam.intinte.org}