You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Is This Hive's Verified Check Mark?
Any chance you might be merging manniman's comments with mine in your head? We are two different persons, I just picked up his side of the convo somewhere in the middle while openly disagreeing with some of his views.
You, yourself, and your thought process, went straight into trying to convert a consumer into an investor. (...) [you call me] A salesman trying to sell HP? WTF?
Or maybe confusing myself with yourself? You tell consumers to support creators with voting, how does one do that without HP? I tell them to tip directly instead and avoid buying HIVE they cannot consume instantly.
FTR, I never said you cash in for your sale efforts. I just observed the consumer ended up on a very consumer side of the deal.
You, yourself, and your thought process, went straight into trying to convert a consumer into an investor. "No, you're not interested in what you're interested in, here's a 'better' deal."
Other platforms where the consumer is tipping nonstop (...)
Consumers are throwing billions at content creators. This system offers them a far superior deal.
OK, I do not want to piss you off any further. I am not offended either, just releasing the tension arising from the absurdity.
Anyway. You're putting words in my mouth and twisting context. That's annoying, and I don't feel like wasting time sifting though and sorting things out with you, because you'll just do it again.
I get that, I am easily annoyed by that myself. If I ever do that, that is because I misunderstood your text. Feel free to point out specific instances so that I can correct my misconceptions. So far, I only noticed you getting uncomfortable with me when I said you called something "decent" when you meant "decent" and literally wrote "decent", confusing the audience (ie. myself).
Again, there is no sorting out with me but I have covered that previously. Do not try to change my mind. Make me sound dumb and make everyone laugh at me instead. Please. That would help me.
Going back to my thought process, I would like to pinpoint one aspect: I prefer rewarding content to rewarding content creators. That's why I disagree with the following:
1000 votes or tips worth a penny is far more valuable than one vote worth $10. Consumers always have more money to bring in, investors max out. Small tips in bulk consistently rather than large chunks sporadically, since creators put new stuff out daily.
Sentence One: Trash talk from a motivational e-book. (Triggers me too easy, I know.) They are both worth $10. Maybe the next big tip happens to be $20. Maybe 200 of those fans stop upvoting you by then. Maybe all 1000 fans spread themselves thin starting to support a handful of other creators along with you.
Sentence Two: Wishful thinking. All consumers have more needs than resources. Investors max out, consumers go broke.
Sentence Three: Fair personal preference. My POV is that there is a dilemma between frequency and quality. I do not encourage frequency, because putting new stuff out every day ends up in a soap-opera-like product. I do not object to having soap operas around, I do object to your reluctance to analyse statements that are axiomatic to you (either via thousand repetitions or due to being super easy to prove under your subjective assumptions).
Last I checked not even 1% of rewards allocated had been downvoted and much of that was targeted towards HBD funder.
Of course. Looking at the big picture, there is almost no DVing going on. Unfortunately, that supports my point (almost noone can afford to DV) as well, so it won't help deciding who is wrong here.
it's not cool to use AI as a tool to deceive others
Why? Because someone's handmade content creating business is hurt by machinemade content creating competition? Or are we consumer-first society that makes sure the content is plentiful for everyone? Are your shoes handmade? Would you prefer empty shelves and packed aisles in the shop when you are buying the next pair?
I know "the Police" did not ban AI but they are trying to enforce dumb arbitrary guidelines. Not selling stolen content/goods is widely acceptable. Refusing GMO food or AI texts is a personal preference (either possibly being a winning decision in the darwinist game - however, refusing machinemade shoes feels unlikely to be one).
Upvote/downvote system is normal. Just had a funny thought while using AI search and downvoting a response that was unreasonable. Wouldn't it be fucked up if this chatbot started freaking out over being downvoted...
It might be funny but there is a real issue.
Do you allow the chatbot to contribute to chain and allow the person running it to monetise its content? If so, do you expect every upvoter to actually read the entry before upvoting? Do you allow fans to auto-upvote on the basis of frequent tiny votes to a useful service (relying on people reading the ocassional blunder to downvote the nonsense)? Does unreasonable mean "pc for provably incorrect" or "non-provable" (or st else)? In my book it is fucked up for a human reader that upvoted the unreasonable response in good faith (not knowing it was flawed) to lose curation rewards (rewards for being attentive and willing to interact) based on their ignorance even though they did it all right (actively consumed content and voted manually). Is that supposed to be a surcharge for more intensive educational experience? I know, it is too many questions for nonamesleftforuse (no need to answer, I highly value the other input from you). It is meant to be a quality excercise for any reader that wants to learn the implications of the current reward calculation algorithm.
Seriously, the debate is not about downvotes removing author rewards, it is about messing up the curation rewards.
You took comments of mine out of context and started the whole bit of confusion. I keep trying to tell you I don't have time for this. Now I'm presented with another endless spiel of shit I don't feel like explaining. I'm just spinning my fucking tires.
YES, I know 1000 votes worth a penny is worth the same dollar value as one vote worth $10. 1000 people is more valuable than 1, especially if you're in the business of getting views.
Yes, consumers go broke because they throw their money away. See how a business model that allows for the consumer to achieve their goal of supporting content without throwing that money away suddenly becomes a better deal now?
Probably not.
I don't have the time to sit here and break down every little thought to the smallest detail, in a comment section, under a post, to someone I don't know, for nothing.
You're being intellectually lazy with some of your responses.
The issue with the AI. If you use AI to create art and call yourself an artist and act like you created it, you're a fraud. If you use AI to write and story and call yourself a storyteller, you're a fraud. The fraudulent behavior is the issue. Not the AI. People use it all the time. I won't because I don't need to. Got my own style.
That's how I feel about it and I only speak for me and because I'm able to form an opinion, that does not make me "The police."
You not enjoying daily content doesn't matter. Gamers stream daily and that's only one example. In general, yes, the daily grind can be a drain, becoming monotonous. Some can hold an audience, some can't. Lots of variety and contributors. Consumer never stops consuming or spending money regardless. They just keep feeding something like Twitch or Youtube money, nonstop.
And someone using AI probably wouldn't get too many, fans. People follow artists, not art. The unique personality is what attracts fans. Plenty of people can write about science, for instance. And AI can help perfect those words, sure. That won't attract fans though until you slap a bowtie on it and call yourself Bill Nye the Science Guy or some shit.
News/information, same thing. Fox has personalities, CNN has personalities. Alex Jones knows the game. Youtubers. People are not fans of news and information so you throw a personality in there and the stories become far more attractive.
And like I said, if you downvote someone and their consumer base as they're getting tens of thousands of views and thousands of comments daily, as a stakeholder, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. Moronic. That's just common sense to me. I have no issues with autovotes and all that. People subscribe to magazines and pay before reading next month's issue.
However, it would make sense to downvote that if the account was compromised and started spitting out nonsense like what happened to Linus Tech Tips. It's good to have flexible systems in place to handle things like that. Someone might also freak out and do something stupid, resulting in their fans downvoting and turning their backs. That's life. Shit happens. Wouldn't be the first time.
Here's an example of an unreasonable response in that AI search setting.
Any yeah I'll give it back, play your little game, and just say, Yeah too many questions.
And leave you hanging.
Curation "rewards." If someone upvotes useless shit and that gets downvoted, the "curator" fucked up, and fuck ups aren't known to be a rewarding experience in life. Fans or actual consumers of actual content they think is actually awesome, do not fuck that up. I downvoted spam as example, remember? And with that by default since it was upvoted means there's some "curation reward" involved. That was lost. So? Takes the same amount of effort to upvote something that wasn't useless spam junk nonsense trash, so maybe get a brain and do that if you want "curation rewards".
And that's my opinion. I don't represent Hive, I represent myself. People are free to use their words and settle disputes if there are any. With so many variables and an endless stream of different scenarios, you will never find "The Answer."
If there was more emphasis placed on actual consumption, by actual consumers, brought on independently by actual content creators seeking actual views, with millions of accounts engaging daily, many of what some consider to be "issues" go away. Actual paying consumers. We don't have that and I'd like to change that but I'm bored with talking about it. I've been trying for years. Downvoting due to lack of consumption is not the answer. These people have simply become products of their environment.
No problems were solved in the making of this conversation.
Have a nice day.