RE: Is Hive Watcher's doing a good job?

It is that supposed principles are being constantly contradicted, which are first proclaimed loudly and proudly and then broken with a downvote for not being able to stomach insults or differentiating opinions. On whim.

When I opened my Steemit account it was advertised with "you get paid to blog" and with "free speech", their unique selling points.

However, it cannot credibly advertise itself and later Hive as such, as free speech is prevented here just as it is elsewhere. Not through downvotes per se, but by promoting mainstream content. What you see on trending is what counts and is consumed mostly.

Since no clear set of rules is communicated centrally, there are no clear rules. For example, you have to get to know HW before you know what function it fulfils.

For me, Hive is an example of what happens when you create a space where people who have nothing to do with each other try their hand at politics. Since there are no familial, local or business relationships between them, the only currency is the attention currency. If you're not conjuring up the end of the world (extreme on one side) or drawing a utopia (extreme on the other), you remain a barely read user. Which I do not mind personally (IF I have a steady readership of a handful of people) but that's how online-activity seems to be understood.

Everything else is mediocre entertainment as a matter of fact.

People say that every user has to be a plagiarism/spam police. But the fact is that most people don't want to do that, which is understandable when you put into perspective how much time it takes to do just that.

The ludicrous thing about the situation is that if someone posts spam in large quantities, the payouts first have to be visible in order to be noticed, for example trending. But if they now appear on the trending page, it means that they already have high payouts. I would say that spam usually doesn't trend, but then spam is hard to find. So it's just a coincidence if you come across a spammer account.

I wouldn't downvote a spammer if I come across one, since it cannot be done by just one glimpse and then push a button. So you need a police. Who then reports violation to a mature committee, who then contacts the suspect, who then have a talk, who then clear the case. All of it must be transparent and not behind the scenes, as you rightly pointed out. The payment for the police and the committee must be worth the time and work invested. The documentation of the executives must be well written and thoroughly done by the best standards. The police ought not be the judges, only the ones who refer supposedly spammers and plagiarists to the committee.

Since "spam" isn't crystal clear either, some whales downvote posts that simply have a picture plus a little text as spam. Opinions can be divided here.

The users then complain because countless of them actually have no awareness at all that what they publish maybe regarded as totally unimportant rubbish. Only when you get to know a user do you begin to understand what their "one picture plus two lines" could mean. For example with antisocialist.

But of course, there ARE just rubbish postings who could as well be AI-supported content. One never knows before one does not engage on a one-on-one basis. So I would say people are not payed for their content but for being known (becoming acquainted to each other) through engagement over a longer course of time. It's relational.

If someone is not interested at all in building a relation towards his audience, it can mean (but not for sure) that he gives a damn. But you never know. Sometimes people want to share what they find important in an open space. And, as you say, value free speech more than payout. But it can't be helped, since the payout is in the first place what generates attention. So, free speech is linked to high payouts.

I have often experienced the politicians on this platform (witnesses) saying that they really don't want to debate with every single user, which is "exactly why downvotes and upvotes are distributed". But that's still what they should and are expected to do, as they are perceived as politicians and set themselves up as such.

But if you are in such a mood that you don't really want to have anything to do with the tedious work of a politician because it is supposedly enough to press buttons, you end up with a user base that presses buttons. The whole design is geared towards button-pushing and because of this, witnesses refuse to do anything other than push buttons. They justify it by saying that it saves time and the statement itself is enough for people to find buttons pressed on their post, representing either a thumbs up or a thumbs down. The whole nature of the algorithm is geared towards this.

"Saving time" and automating the very processes in which people actually can come to an understanding towards each other, is an illusion. Time cannot be saved, since conflict cannot be avoided. Avoiding conflict means to push buttons instead of debating.

It's an illusion to think that pushing buttons represent engagement since it doesn't. So, they can be believed in saying that they don't want to debate with every single user. But then, they cannot place a downvote either, if they refuse to talk to that specific user who received their downvote. That is a contradiction. They are expected to invest personal time and arguments. If they don't like it, they cannot be a witness, and should remove themselves from the witness list.

One person cannot talk to many people at the same time, that's true. Each individual can only have a conversation with a handful of people. If you violate this insight, you succumb to the misconception that this truth can be replaced by pressing buttons. It can't.