How is randomly picking posts that powerful accounts in their own opinion deem to be too valuable and then use their whale power to downvote content that someone works hard to put together and post on Hive good for the community in any way?
How is this not price manipulation and rewards manipulation?
Dev accounts that gained their power from the community should not then turn on the same community members who are supporting their dev projects and downvote their content.
So far, the only answer I have seen to this question of why huge whale accounts downvote redfish for the fuck of it is that it is "for good reasons."
This gives off a sense of hierarchy, a sense of hierarchy mixed with a little fuckery is why I left Steemit and this will continue to piss me off until I can wrap my head around why it is happening.
Why should a community member's PoB be shit on when even the accounts doing the downvoting admit that they don't even dislike the content they are downvoting?
I wanted to update this post because I have learned more about how downvoting works and I understand it much better now. To quote a friend "getting flagged hurts" and this is true. Downvoting has been debated long before I joined this platform and I am proposing a solution that will hopefully quell some of the friction caused by downvoting. To be clear, I am talking about balancing rewards and reward disagreement downvotes. Currently when a post is downvoted the user who gets their post downvoted does not know why, they are left to think that this big account does not like their content and this causes friction between big accounts and content creators. I think that if a user is told that their post was downvoted in order to balance the reward pool and that this action helps make sure rewards are balanced then users may be less agitated when their content gets downvoted.
-Joziah Thayer