On number 7, I would argue saying the reward pool should not treat shared videos, posts, Twitter Tweets, Facebook posts, shared photos, shared memes, links, random things shared from random websites, forums, emails, etc, etc, differently. Don't treat them differently and let the people decide. But perhaps if not enough people upvote a shared item, then perhaps resource credits, the manna, the Hive Power, should go down. Perhaps punish people that way in order to limit spam, abuse, etc. But I believe in rewarding people for sharing. Besides, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, they make billions to trillions of dollars letting us share things on their platforms. Why can't we do the same? Like, is it ok when they do it and not ok when alternative tech do it?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Gaining financial value on the work done by someone else is a very dubious thing. Also the legal implications also scare me. You could perhaps argue the value was in the work that was taken to find and share but the person on the other side (the one who created the thing you shared) may not feel the same and who knows... could they say it with a lawsuit? Also do we really want to bring in something that we're always fighting about and our answer is to just bring in more downvoting... that hasn't ended well so far.
Communities really do need the ability to share outside content because no community system that is successful right now is successful without it. However we have to be careful because of the unique reward pool aspect of hive. Then again if you create a good community you will have people motivated by much more then a few cents of limited reward pool inflation.