RE: Decentralized doesn't have to mean chaotic. A case for Hive communication.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
If you're talking a human representing us, I will sell now and leave hive.
If you are talking specifically about Artificial Intellegence speaking for Hive, then I could support that, but every other context of a human, how is naturally bias, having a say about a platform I express myself on, is against everything I stand for.
Independence is a virtue, and I don't need a face especially a stupid looking human talking head speaking on my behalf.
We don't need onboarding, who the fuck wants all those retards to post the pictures of their dogs on Hive now?
I don't care what you ate for dinner or what you think social media is, I probably follow you for another reason more intrinsically tied to a sense of individualism you have.
Possibly I went a little bit too deep into the narrative of the mass adoption. I need to reconsider it. Your answer seems to be so radical that I'd love to see your vision for Hive.
I'll try to nuance my point of view to avoid misunderstanding. Answering in order of appearance in your message.
IMO A member of the Hive community with the support of the community has possibly a much bigger chance to create an impact during a crypto conference than as an anonymous user. This is just one example. And marketing to content creators is just one part, the other thing is to market towards potential developers. It's not about politics. It's about compatibility with other entities. And this done by AI would be terrific!
Onboarding doesn't mean cat-and-food-people to flood Hive, it means creating a user experience bearable for non-techy, legit content creators. Of course, after some time everyday people will come after their idols but the task of the community is to curate desirable posts. And people without motivation to improve content quality will give up quickly without earnings. I simply believe everybody needs a chance to make his or her way here.
To cede parts of the freedom lays within boundaries of freedom and the viewpoint of strict no-representation should be equally respected and accepted in the system I imagined and presented. I should have mentioned it before.
So what's not good enough about the immutable voice of the blockchain?
Can it not speak for itself?
I would see any human as a clown trying to be the voice of a community that didn't ask for their voice to be raised.
To speak for itself platform is needed. The process of choosing the person to speak would speak for itself. I mean people from the outside need to have the opportunity to hear that decentralized voice. And if people don't see Hive, the opportunity is missed.
Perhaps @hivecoffee could curate this idea? There's a lot of people all of us will need to approve of before one is chosen if that were to ever happen, the vetting process would probably good for a on chain governance stress test.