RE: $129 auto posts?

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

That seems wrong to me, but then I think self-voting is bad generally.

How is this (morally) different from purchasing a banner ad ?

If you buy more stake in order to raise the profile of your posts, then ALL STAKEHOLDERS win.



0
0
0.000
18 comments
avatar

Stakeholders win. Authors lose.

When you purchase a banner ad there is no issue with your stake appreciation aka curation reward (that has been intentionally pushed towards equalisation by the hardfork) is boosted by misplacing some author rewards to your own post.

It only takes a minor downvote to discourage people from voting questionable posts (for the fear of ineffective curation returns, that is).

FTR, my position is that effort should not be a factor in rewards. Lack of content an autoposts is the dangerous mixture to me.

0
0
0.000
avatar

What is specifically "dangerous" about a "no content" "autopost" ?

(IFF) you don't like it (THEN) mute the account

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't think it's the same and there are not really other things you can compare it to. Self-voting is a double win as you get more post rewards and more from curation. You can get the latter voting for others. I just think we need to be wary of normalising selfish behaviour.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Buying a coin, like HIVE is functionally indistinguishable from purchasing stock in a corporation.

If I can buy enough stock that I can self-boost my content in order to drive eyeballs, that's an INVESTMENT THAT HELPS EVERYONE WHO ALSO OWNS SHARES.

Imagine if major corporations like mcdonalds or coca-cola got into HIVE and wanted to boost their articles to the top of the trending page every day.

HIVE WOULD GO THROUGH THE ROOF.

And then other corporations would jump in and buy up tons of HIVE

so they could boost their own content !!!!!

Paying for banner ads only benefits the web-host, not us.

SELF-VOTING INCREASES REAL VALUE FOR ALL STAKE-HOLDERS.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Imagine if major corporations like mcdonalds or coca-cola got into HIVE and wanted to boost their articles to the top of the trending page every day.

You first need to build the userbase you want to sell it off to corporations. There is a faction betting on building it through relevant content. It could be right or it could be wrong.

Coca-cola talk is daydreaming at this point. But even then, users downvoting Coca-cola promo make them need even more Hive sending the token price even further through the roof. Coca-cola has no feelings to be hurt and can afford to pay the community-requested premium on their ad. You only need to make sure the major frontends do not mute Coca-cola content based on receiving too many downvotes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't think coca-cola is going to be interested in participating unless they can guarantee their placement with the smallest possible investment.

LBRY Odysee.com ranks vids based on staked tokens.

You can stake to your channel and or stake to one or more individual vids.

You can also stake to someone else's channel or to someone else's vids.

This makes staking like an upvote that you can take back later if you wish.

The same goes for text posts and file posts (not just vids).

LBRY Odysee.com also has an option for you to post "pay per view" content.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well Hive would change if that happened. For now I see self-votes as a simple money grab. In most cases it's not about getting on trending as that would take the sort of investment most can't afford.

As always people get to decide how much a post earns and you can get judged by what you do. Most of the people I support could only add a few cents to their posts. I choose not to self-vote as the extra money is not worth it to me.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I've never heard a coherent moral theory of why self-voting is teh evilz.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not necessarily 'evil', but maybe not always a good thing. When I see it then my voting is influenced. I realise people can be sneaky about it via proxy accounts. I know of an account that upvotes every post and comment they put out.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah, but even the hivewatcher police upvote their own stuff.

I've even pointed it out to them and they say, well, it's ok as long as you don't abuse it.

I have no idea.

If you own the stake, you should be able to self-vote.

The "reward pool" doesn't know and doesn't care who you vote for.

It literally makes no difference.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You can do what you want and so can others who will judge you. People make up their own minds about stuff. They won't necessarily agree, as we obviously don't, and that's okay.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Is it perhaps like when someone spends money in their own restaurant ?

Is that some sort of rude gesture and an insult to all the other restaurants ?

0
0
0.000
avatar

These analogies do not really work IMHO. Hive is not like 'real life'. There are new norms.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Look, if you're trying to say it's bad to self-vote, you're really begging the question of exactly what MORAL THEORY you're basing this on.

(IFF) "HIVE is not like anything" (THEN) NONE of your "moral instincts" apply.

0
0
0.000
avatar

With a new economy we have to find new norms. I go with my instincts. I can make my own decisions on what is good or bad for Hive, but I will look at what others say. You just haven't persuaded me to change my mind, but things could change. I will continue to vote as I see fit. Thanks for the discussion.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I'm just trying to understand why people find it offensive.

0
0
0.000