@music account
The Ultimate Hypocrisy.
Billionaires are constantly proving to us that they are all talk and are unwilling to ever make actual sacrifices to better humankind. They all have God complexes and they either want to be the Hero or the Villain, often both at the same time (anti-hero).
The savior complex is real.
Jack Dorsey keeps signaling he want's to create an open, neutral, permissionless social media network. There's just one catch: he refuses to relinquish control of the products he creates. Jack Dorsey is one of the best examples of potential "white savior" complex. Or perhaps denoting the color of his skin is irrelevant to the conversion. Anyone with that much power tends to lose touch with reality and the plight of the common person.
@music on Twitter
Elon Musk "bought" Twitter under the premise that free speech was important. That fantasy lasted only a couple weeks until the reality of the situation actually hit him. It didn't take long for him to realize how bad things can get when a platform has zero regulation. Hive has regulation as well: the difference is that the regulation on Hive is decentralized... billionaires don't understand this concept.
Then just recently he stole the @music account for himself.
In the ultimate show of hypocrisy the @music account on Twitter was confiscated for use by Twitter itself. This is the opposite of free speech. Rules for thee not for me, peasant. They wanted it, so they took it; easy.
How can free speech be accomplished when users don't even own their accounts? Twitter owned the account, and they took it back; simple as that. Proving once again that not owning your account on social media means true freedom of speech is basically impossible. In the real world this would be the equivalent to not owning your own voice or your own identity. Imagine if someone could just strip you of your voice. It's like the Little Mermaid all over again!
The situation is in the infancy.
Most people simply do not understand the importance of owning their own digital identity? Why? Because WEB2 has brainwashed everyone into thinking it doesn't matter. We trade everything for free service, and that was fine while it lasted, but the system has been hacked to oblivion.
Now WEB3 has a chance to unwind all that brainwashing.
I read on Twitter the other day that ten THOUSAND people offered to change their legal name to literally "Subway" in order to get free sandwiches for life. How ridiculous is that? Doesn't even matter if it's true or not. It sounds true. People are willing to bend over backwards for free stuff to a comical level. Imagine what they'll do for UBI in the future.
WEB3 changes the narrative by forcing people to realize that their digital identity actually has value. Whereas in WEB2 they traded all that value for free service (which was fine because that value was small), in WEB3 the value is deposited directly into their wallet.
The fact that WEB3 is simply worth more than WEB2 makes this model feasible. A WEB2 user is worth no more than $10 a year in advertising dollars. A WEB3 user is worth much much more than that because the infrastructure we are building turns users into employees rather than potential consumers. This blog post is a rough example of what could be. Make no mistake: ten years down the line I'll be able to create 'content' on WEB3 that's worth several magnitudes greater than these words I type to the screen. This is the direction we are heading.
Conclusion
Crypto is still in the infant stages. The technology is getting built out at an exponential pace, but a lot of what is being built is also a failed adaptation of WEB2. We need a breakthrough, and once we get one that will be it: the dam will be broken and value will pour into the space.
When people realize how valuable their digital presence is (measured by literal currency) they're never going to go back to WEB2. They'll understand the importance of owning their own account. A centralized entity being able to steal it whenever they want is simply not acceptable. Elon Musk is a hypocrite, but of course this was known long ago; all billionaires are. There's no way to acquire that much money without siphoning the lifeforce from millions of people into your own pocket. Perhaps one day crypto will show us another path with higher equity and lower diminishing returns. One can hope.
I'd love to see everyone leave twitter and facebook at once for Hive. The reactions would be priceless!!!
This post has been manually curated by the VYB curation project
Truth or Consequences, NM says hello.
!PGM
!PIZZA
!CTP
BUY AND STAKE THE PGM TO SEND A LOT OF TOKENS!
The tokens that the command sends are: 0.1 PGM-0.1 LVL-0.1 THGAMING-0.05 DEC-15 SBT-1 STARBITS-[0.00000001 BTC (SWAP.BTC) only if you have 2500 PGM in stake or more ]
5000 PGM IN STAKE = 2x rewards!
Discord
Support the curation account @ pgm-curator with a delegation 10 HP - 50 HP - 100 HP - 500 HP - 1000 HP
Get potential votes from @ pgm-curator by paying in PGM, here is a guide
I'm a bot, if you want a hand ask @ zottone444
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@torran(4/10) tipped @edicted
And WEB3 is immensely harder to program.
In the beginning, one server, one program, one thread.
It was very easy to write and manage. No race conditions, all the information was just there, nothing was changed in the middle of your operation...
Now, we give up all the knowns. We have to program like anything could happen. No assumptions.
It is a far better thing, and much more elegant solutions will come from it.
But the growing pains are painful.
I imagine that, for the lack of a better term, "facebook" will be turned inside out. The protocol replaces the server. The users become unfettered. The system is the connections between friends.
The impending thing from my view is that the internet will have to change. It is currently designed for 10% up, 90% down. The servers feed the users. Soon it will not be that way.
That sounds curious. Am I an employee of Hive? Can you explain what you mean here.
The network rewards users that brings value to it just like a corporation offers value to users that bring value to it.
Awesome, I'm like a freelance writer for Hive lol. I didn't think of Hive getting Hive in that way yet it makes sense.
This is the key to Web3 success across the board.
Agree 100%
Crypto is in it's infancy
It is in some ways weak, protectionless versions of TradFi and Web 2.0
This results in rampant theft with at times impunity
And your last or next to last point...
People giving away shit with infinite value for pennies is a take as old as time.
By the way, I read this on Twitter and wasn't sure it actually happened,
But that didn't stop me from writing a post on it for the same reasons.
Now that you wrote a post I feel like it really happened.
I was very disappointed in Elon for this.
But I guess it just shows he is human and we need to realize our heroes are just humans who excel sometimes and fail other times.
Jack Dorsey has been around longer and failed more, so people are sour on him.
Elon...give him time..
We need physical infrastructure to run our software on that does not allow the billionaires to just take away our use of their infrastructure at a whim.
Thanks!
Hive is incomparable. But I don't understand what you mean by the comment: He stole @music account.
@music, is it the name of an individual account on Twitter?
Hive whales may not have the ability to steal an account name/login, but they do have the ability to render accounts unviable through downvoting and other methods.
In that sense, the situation on Hive really isn't that much different to X.
If Elon Musk were to buy up enough Hive he could replicate the general effects of some of his 'unfriendly' tactics on X relatively easily.
(I think it's important to point out that Musk appointed a World Economic Forum stooge as the CEO, so the chances of him genuinely caring about free speech and transparency seem to be on a par with Justin Sun).
They do not have this power: or rather they do not have this power without the consensus of all the frontends that support this exact type of behavior. To say that they hold this power alone is incorrect.
This is also just so blatantly incorrect that I feel like you're just playing Devil's Advocate at this point. Like... no... he can't buy that much Hive. No, he won't buy that much Hive. No, even if he buys that much Hive he can't do the thing that you are saying. Even if he could do the thing you are saying it's a gross exaggeration to claim that it would be "relatively easy". Like, come on: you're being ridiculous. There's is a zero percent chance that this is a correct assessment on an objective logical level.
It's extra funny that you bring up Justin Sun, which is yet more proof that you're wrong in the idea that a billionaire can just pop in and do whatever they please. It's already been proven otherwise in the field within the simulation. It's not even speculation anymore.
You know I know exactly what you're saying. I'm no stranger to downvotes or flag wars and all kinds of drama that goes along with it. I will always come at this network from a developer's ideology, and developers on Hive are untouchable if they build a robust product. This has been shown in many ways including simply minting a new token that the old-guard has no control over, but on a very real level all that matters is that anyone can post immutable data to the chain with RCs alone, and that has yet to be censored in any way (except on frontends that choose to use the "reputation" mechanic on purpose to deboost downvoted content). The point is that any application that doesn't require curation or simply chooses to ignore the "reputation" code completely sidesteps all of that, rendering your argument completely null and void.
I am a professional developer and systems engineer, but also perform numerous marketing and business tasks for clients that generally relate to Web 3 and decentralisation - so I'm not speaking here as someone ignorant of the mechanics involved.
No-one uses raw block explorers to view the blockchain outside of needing to check certain unusual details or timestamps.. for the most part. While the potential censorship effects of the downvotes are affected heavily by the decisions taken by UI designers, the reality is that the best known UIs still rank content by reward payout and also soft censor by reputation. So from a market sentiment perspective (the average user's take on Hive), the issue is real and puts off a lot of people. Over 90% of the people I have met that I have told Hive about will not use it due to this - as I have explained many times, there is a very well established (Scientifically) fact from the world of marketing psychology - the limiting effect of fear of losing something is far greater than the excitement generated when there is a sense of gaining something.
Additionally, as I have pointed out many times - downvote nuking can and has meant that accounts cannot receive any rewards at all - potentially forever. This makes the account unviable on it's own since the account will not receive much visibility, is hugely hampered in it's ability to grow and will not be rewarded financially in the ways the account's competitors are rewarded, meaning the person likely has less capacity to produce content and may well likely give up anyway.
Hive is a community, no-one wants to give their energy to a community where they feel exploited. A sense of exploitation can come simply from comparing to others who don't have the problems you have as a result of the actions of other accounts.
X is not immune from a similar problem, they continue to pay out financial rewards to some accounts and not to others, who by their own standards should be being paid significantly. Musk also 'promised' a transparency dashboard before launching Blue/Premium that would show all shadowbanning data.. It never appeared, but the shadowbanning continues, that now results in an extra way that people are being deceived in the amount of money they are paid. This skews the information on the networks, skews public perception on targeted topics and is quite possibly one of the reasons that people who control these networks are attracted to do so in the first place. Ultimately, money is just a way to get other people to do what you want. If you can do that just by skewing a social network then why not? (if you are a psychopathic scoundrel).
I think basic maths disagrees with you. Musk has an alleged 250+ billion, plus could obviously leverage a lot more. The market cap of Hive is $173.7M according to coinmarketcap.com. I think it's fairly self explanatory how he could buy enough Hive to control the network, given that a huge amount of HP enables positioning of witnesses and therefore the shaping of the blockchain code. His wealth would also mean it would be simple enough to build advanced UIs, maybe even integrate it into X. How many whales do you think would resist a huge payout and the thought that Hive would go mainstream? Some, but not all.
Some of the negative effects I am pointing to on X already exist on Hive anyway. He would not be able to spy on people's private data without re-engineering Hive, that is true - but there are other problems he could introduce here.
It depends on what you are comparing to. If you are comparing to the difficulty of building a rocket to Mars or a world leading electric car company, then I'd say it's relatively easy. Social networking software isn't rocket science. I actually think it is relatively easy when compared to other problems in system engineering that many people have already solved.
Justin Sun did do exactly what he wanted with Steem and continues to as far as I am aware. All accounts on Steem then became compromised in that sense. Yes, the project was forked, but it lost it's market position, it's visibility and it's steam. You are presenting a strawman here anyway, because I didn't say that Musk could 'do whatever he wants', I said "he could replicate the general effects of some of his 'unfriendly' tactics on X".
Yes, there will be a % of the community that decides to fork the technology and carry on with a new chain/brand. However, that doesn't negate the reality that Musk can very likely make changes here if he wants. Whatever he is or isn't, he is not as dumb as Justin Sun, so I could foresee a heavily strategised and PR managed move to redirect Hive over time being possible. I don't actually think it will happen, but it's certainly not as impossible as you are projecting here.
Yes, UIs can exist on Hive that don't monetise content and that don't involve curation, but speaking as someone who has coded their own social network and that has worked with numerous investors, entrepreneurs, marketplaces and audiences - I am pretty clear that without those features, there are vastly better options to build on than Hive. The non censorship features are valuable, but the majority of people aren't excited by them at this point and this is to the point where Hive's directing individuals typically try to act as if this feature doesn't even exist and shouldn't be used to sell the network.
I am speaking from the standpoint of what it takes to make Hive grow to the point where it can change the world, rather than from the standpoint of what it takes to technically have a running network with a few thousand users.
Any time someone advances the cause of Great Saviour who would, thanks to divine powers, talent or unusually large bank account, would solve all of the problems of crypto, I'm reminded what kind of pages those Great Saviours ultimately wrote in history books.