The Daily Meme #695!
I don't know why 'we', as a community, would care to support those of 'us' that are here for a fast, easy buck to piss away on energy drinks and/or lunch.
When we vote rewards to those that dump them as quick as they get them, we cut our own throats.
Instead of giving rewards to those that value them, we give them to those that don't.
You know you are following those trails hoping for some whale drool to drip your way.
Stop voting rewards to posts with more than a few hbd on them.
I guess if I had made my money from this platform, and was just waiting for the inevitable collapse brought on by an apathetic user base, I'd probably have the same attitude, too.
I wouldn't care if everything I vote to others gets dumped as quick as the 7 day window closes.
I've got mine.
I'm going to eat whether hive goes belly up, or not.
Supporting hodlers dilutes my power.
IF hive was to go to 6usd that would be a problem.
Then I would be as rich as any redshills and they have goons on the payroll.
I'd have to hire goons, too.
And the taxman?
Don't get me started on that.
I know I've gone on about this like a broken record, dear readers, and I also know that the dilution from the inflation is a rounding error for the largest stakeholders, but to those of us at the other end of the earnings potential rainbow it looms much larger.
Watching those on trending, day after day, just piss hive away like it was nothing chaps my ass.
'Oh, but anti, I got to eat, don't I?'
What were you eating the month before you found the hive?
Did you come out fully formed, ready to type, and just now need food?
Thank the hive you found us.
Now dump everything we give you because you need it soooo much more than everybody else that has been enslaved by fiat currency feudal systems.
Hive is a commons, what you take nobody else can have.
At 6usd per hive we can have abundance like never seen in the world before, but we will never get there as long as the inflation is being dumped as quick as it prints.
There are many moving curves to the math that makes the payouts in the hive.
Saving hive at 6usd per hive is gonna be even harder than saving it now, everyone will get sooo much less of it per hbd voted to them.
I can't bee the only one that sees voting rewards to those that dump them as quick as the get them as spitting into our collective faces.
Can I?
And, before you accuse me of just being jealous that I haven't been blessed by the reward pool overlords, I gives a damn about the money, per se.
What I care about is the ultimate survival of the hive.
It's not just money that is being dumped.
It is power in the hive.
We know stinc was full of self-servicing pirates.
We forked to get away from the bulk(?) of them.
More than once.
Firestick, anyone?
When the people on trending dump their rewards the people buying them increase their power in the hive.
This centralizes what we all need to be decentralized.
Are you buying hive?
We can rest assured that at least a minimal amount of that cheap hive is being stashed away so that on a day of their choosing they can dump it and try to end us.
The hive can't/won't be controlled in any other way.
Hive has to go to zero, or it will persist.
Please stop feeding into that inevitability.
Until it takes more than 20 accounts to seize 50% of the pool, day after day, the risk of being centralized is real and ongoing.
Is it you that wants hive to go to zero?
Then stop acting like it, eh.
Are you are tired of paying your masters to bomb children in far away places?
Perhaps it is time you pushed back on that.
A simple way that anybody can do that is to hoard your coins.
The fed buys coins at face value from the mint.
A dollar of change in your pocket is a dollar of value out of the banksters' pockets.
Stop playing in their shell game that allows them to play in the amusement parks from hell and shop in the human grocery stores.
'Aint that fresh?'
Take the chapter 9 challenge.
Death to Discord!
Long live Sting!
Join the Hive Discordiant Room: https://peakd.com/c/hive-104940/created
Billy Jack, the movie.
The Trial of Billy Jack.
Billy Jack goes to Washington.
I do what I want!
!lol
I exist solely as a being by myself!
I am an island!
lolztoken.com
It's just q with a bunch of silent letters waiting in line.
Credit: reddit
@enforcer48, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of antisocialist
(1/4)
ENTER @WIN.HIVE'S DAILY DRAW AND WIN HIVE!
At en for cer forty eight you clearly didnt read
He has been here for a long time.
If you want to be better heard here, you will have to power up some hive.
If you don't power some up the rc's will shut you down.
I've started trying to take into account the stake of the person I'm voting for. I try to be lenient. If they have a pretty good stake that's maybe not as much as it should be but they aren't powering down and haven't recently transferred out then I don't hold it against them. I'll still vote for good posts from dumpers but just a um... token amount. Not that a full 100% upvote from me is more than a token amount anyway...
It's up to us as a collective to determine what the custom is to be.
I laid it out the other day, 50rep=500hp, 60rep=1000hp, and 70rep=10k hp.
These numbers leave room for having powered down some.
There are only 400m hive, it's not too much to ask that folks keep some powered up, imo.
Especially now while hive is cheap.
!LOL
lolztoken.com
He bought a warehouse.
Credit: reddit
@antisocialist, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of holovision
(3/10)
Delegate Hive Tokens to Farm $LOLZ and earn 110% Rewards. Learn more.
!MEME
!BBH
Posted using MemeHive
@antisocialist! Your Content Is Awesome so I just sent 1 $BBH (Bitcoin Backed Hive) to your account on behalf of @greywarden100. (1/20)
Credit: pepetoken
Earn Crypto for your Memes @ HiveMe.me!
You mean well rewarded posts, right?
Thanks!
How much do you think is enough?
I generally don't vote anything with more than 5hbd already on it.
That goes up and down with the price, for a while I wouldn't vote anything with more than 1hbd on them, but that was a while ago.
Each of us will have to make our own individual decisions as to what is enough on any post.
Because I am aware of my incompetence to manage Hive's books, I pay as little mind to rewards as possible. I vote on comments as a matter of courtesy, or (on comments on other's posts) to indicate agreement, whether I am providing ancillary comment or not. I vote on posts to support authors, appreciation for their efforts related in the posts, or as agreement with a particular point made in the post.
I never, ever vote because I have VP that needs use, or to increase my HP through curation rewards. I consider curation rewards nothing but derangement of curative intent, replacing pecuniary interest for all others. I always manually vote, and have never even considered automating my voting in any way. I reckon voting on Hive particularly expresses social interaction, and utterly, completely, and absolutely oppose automating social interaction - other than as is necessary to extend our reach to interact with more and diverse people.
The more people managing the hive books the better, imo.
As things are, few people manage things, and it shows.
IF you only vote things you agree with, you don't support free speech.
You only support speech you agree with.
Not at all. You should be aware of my tender, loving care of trolls hereabouts. I simply neglected to mention it.
Also, I do speak about the relative worth of money to other societal values from time to time.
The more I think about it, the less honest that last comment I made was =(
Hmm ... I wouldn't logically conclude that. If I vote on an issue whose content I am critical of and largely disagree with, my vote on it would be taken as agreement in its external effect. I support freedom of speech by not allowing a negative consequence to follow that freedom of speech, so it is sufficient if I leave such content that I do not support unvoted, but do not penalise it either.
There is a clear difference between "allowing" and "approving". Allowing means that I do not put obstacles in the way of free speech. Approval means that I support speech that I do not personally favour with financial contributions or distribution of its content. Why should I do that? That would be like throwing water on the mill of a new regulation whose consequences I consider to be negative for me, for example.
Yes, that is the common misperception.
'Reposting/upvoting does not imply endorsement.'
Not everybody can separate their emotions from their viewpoints.
I don't agree with what some certain authors do and say, but I support their doing it and saying it.
Each of us has to draw that line for ourselves.
While this can be and will be misperceived you cannot avoid it to happen.
I reposted and upvoted contents I do not agree with overall, even not for their most parts but for a small part of what was given as information, for example. True. It could be interpreted as support, that's right.
But conversely, you wouldn't say that you tend to support such authors or content that doesn't correspond to your views more in comparison with those you agree with, would you? You tend to support what you yourself think is more correct. It would be completely crazy to do it the other way round, wouldn't it?
Would you actively support certain authors on a regular and obvious basis with whom you don't agree with?
You certainly wouldn't want to support behaviors that harm others, but the hive is all words.
But, you are largely correct, there has been speech in the hive that I absolutely wouldn't support, mostly lies and malicious speculations.
I can point to accounts I would vote more regular if their flaggots didn't come by and kype my curation rewards for the trending page.
I think to buy some HIVE.
I have come to believe that transparency regarding individual user behaviour - what happens in their wallet - is more of a curse than a blessing. The fact that you can see when everyone is powering down or powering up seems to be more counterproductive than productive. Seeing the transactions and movements of individuals in terms of their voting and transaction behaviour then becomes the main topic to talk/argue/fight about. What if that would change?
Basically, I assume that there would be less conflict if one could not see the usernames that votes assign, but everything remained anonymous. Why? Because you think you "know" the people who upvote or downvote you, but in reality they are just names and figures to whom I have no particular relationship, only an indeterminate one.
Unless I refer to facts such as access numbers of my content, how many eyes have seen my content, the dwell time and whether they come from internally or externally. Any information beyond that, such as the amount of reward someone has determined for me, already influences my own behaviour.
I think it's a funny - unserious - idea to give out the payout amount only as a total, but not who specifically the votes come from and not how much from the single voters. Any form of ingratiating oneself as well as fighting caustically would then be impossible, because one would not know with whom one would be on good or bad terms. The user would be left to his own devices and would only know how his content was received by the audience on the basis of objective figures. Whereby one would make it transparent, for example, that 10 users voted with 50 percent, 6 users with 100 percent, 30 users with 60 percent, etc.
LOL
I know, this is silly and it probably would also not avoid conflicts but I would like to know what effect this would actually have. HaHa! Though I am in favor of conflicts as far as they teach me something (which they most likely always do).
Peakd shows this data.
Anonymity would lead to more problems.
Transparency has issues, but at least we can see who is causing them.
We just need to establish our customs as a community and enforce them with mob actions.
Games have rules because without rules there is no game.
Games that have rules that are not enforced quickly degrade into chaos.
There has never been more than a handful of people that monitor the 'anti-abuse' crowd, but everybody has an opinion, mostly negative.
IF more people paid attention to what hw's and the others are doing on a daily basis they would not have the opinions they have, imo.
When you don't see what is happening on a day to day basis, but only speak out when emotions run high, then your viewpoint is skewed, you don't have the full data set.
I've been watching this crowd for years, I have seen very few authors that didn't exacerbate their case with emotional outbursts.
Almost all were guilty of some small rules violation, but didn't want to admit it, nor bend the knee to hw's.
The system invites abuse, if you ask me. In the real world, if you leave your wallet open or don't lock your front door, you're told you've invited abuse and it's your own fault if you get robbed. When a system invites abuse, one can talk about an ideal state where the system, although easily abused, is not allowed to be exploited willy-nilly, but where it does happen with ease, there is a certain comedy in watching emotions run high. As long as there are role models who also engage in exploitation and remain untouched as big fish, the small ones will also remain unaware of any guilt and will not bend their knee, that is how I see it. However, I don't see any solution to make the system exploitation-proof, so the conflicts will probably remain.
Which are?
As there is no general solution, case by case is the way to go. Shall these cases be talked about in the open? That's another question.
Yes, perfection is not an option, only the minimization of error.
The hw's appeals are all public in the discord, but few keep up with what is happening day to day.
I've been watching for years, and few 'abused authors' have withstood scrutiny.
They have all somehow colored outside the lines, but don't want to admit that they're wrong.
Hw's is doing an adequate job, now.
I can't speak from before ~2019, but times were wilder then.
Nobody is willing to step up and do something similar, so hw's is what we get until somebody does.
You have to be a dolt or very devious to get publicly upset about unfair treatment or to cause a ripple. Yes, I would say that some of those caught got a bit too upset. One has to be careful not to be too impressed as an uninvolved observer, however, such observers have certainly done their bit to ensure that HW do not continue to go too overboard in their way of dealing with abuse. Indeed, no one wants to do this work, it is a thankless task. Basically, it is all an ongoing act, a never-ending balancing of what constitutes human interaction. This can also be seen as a learning field for processes that were experienced in life by our ancestors, for example in unregulated clashes on previously unoccupied territories. Since the internet in a way represents such uncharted territory, and what happened before in the physical world is imitated here.
Since civilised people already live in over-regulated spaces where everything they do or don't do is subject to some rule or law, it is new and difficult to come to terms with environments that are not yet so thoroughly regulated and offer more freedom, comparatively. In theory, everyone can know everything better, but in practice it is very easy to come up against limits and problems of understanding and lack of experience with leadership.
It's almost as if we have lost all our rites of passage to adulthood.
The identities being shared are fewer each decade.
The better to control us with, I guess.
When our first lesson in life is 'do what you are told, or consequences', we too often begin to wait our turn to dish out our own version of consequences.
Then we take the opportunities with great relish, some of us.
Those that engineer consent don't have the benefit of us all in mind, or this wouldn't be the case so much of the time.
We did. There is nothing in terms of hardship and endurance favored in modern societies. Everything has to be easy and pain free. I believed for a long time that this ought to be the case. But I was wrong. Entering adulthood must come with risk, pain and the success of having felt hurt and anxiety in order to be prepared for similar happenings.
In small tribal cultures, so the assumption goes, those who belonged to the tribe had a clear identity. But at the same time, this prevented them from breaking away and questioning it. The multitude of coexisting identity groups in peaceful coexistence probably only lasted as long as the peace was not disturbed. But where the respective rites of passage from childhood to adulthood diverged greatly, turbulence and conflict as well as war would have ensued. Nevertheless, I believe that the mixing of peoples also took place in tribal cultures and was recognised as necessary. Something like trade in food and valuable goods will also have taken place among the early peoples, I think.
That is probably so. It's better to undergo some risks while still at young age and having been able to break rules without being caught in doing so. This may prevent the individual to be too resentful towards others when breaking rules becomes the main focus.
When things go one's way for too long it begins to corrupt the character.
Not hearing no is not good for personal development, imo.
Just look around, the kids nowadays get mad when somebody tells them no.
I worked in the PR and media business for about 15 years. I learned there from scratch which instruments of influencing people are most effective. This includes the unrestricted repetition of pre-determined catchwords, which one then stoically publishes again and again, so that through this method something is believed to be important and true, regardless of whether it really is. At that time, we had clear guidelines from the companies commissioning us and all measures were neatly evaluated according to certain criteria. People are very gullible and easily influenced, is what I learned from this and even I, as a professional, fell for other PR measures where I didn't have my own area of work. I learned that building a brand is essential for the awareness of a product or a person. This brand must always be communicated in the same way under all circumstances, the values must appear permanently and in agonising repetition in all press releases in a certain number and intensity (also in a figurative sense). This is how you achieve the broad and long-lasting effect. Supported by image and colour worlds.
Since no individual likes to think of himself as gullible, PR is usually not recognized as such.
Edward Bernays is the culprit.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.275553/page/n7/mode/2up
Have you come across The Crowd?