Some of y'all may be aware of my ongoing disagreement with one of Hive's top witnesses and, based on the nature of our contention, I feel this needs to be said...
Your upvotes are NOT philanthropy!
I know this may seem counterintuitive with crowd-funding projects like @fundition in this space but hear me out.
Imagine if you will what our platform would become if it were nothing but digital panhandling and sob stories. This would effectively undermine curation, the process through which the value of the contribution to the network is appraised.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that there are people in need and we should look for ways to help them but payment via inflation (through the reward pool) is not an efficient mechanism for doing so. For example, the post may be lackluster and then be downvoted.
This may elicit a kneejerk response from those that don't understand the rationale behind negative curation but, if the content was lacking in internal substance or external activity to benefit the chain, the downvote is thus the rational response.
Some of you may recall the dimimp debacle. This one was a upvote philanthropist but did not seem to understand that this, when done overtly in the manner he had, is like opening up a can of salmon in a room full of cats.
Perhaps, not the most appropriate analogy for people and their struggles but, if you research the matter, you find it to be apt.
All one has to do really is perform a query using @good-karma's hivesearcher utility to understand the sort of content that results despite the good intentions.
https://hivesearcher.com/search?q=Dimimp
This isn't however the only type of upvote philanthropy I would like to address. There is another train of thought that supposes any votes not for one's self are somehow an act of altruism. I do believe there may be an ideological overlap for those that have seen votes as an asset to sell that share this proclivity which comes as no surprise.
They view curating and voting others as "giving away money" rather than rewarding quality and/or value. This seems to be a mode of what I would call ego-driven curation in lieu of content or contribution driven.
There is nothing wrong about feeling good about doing the right thing (that is the thing that is positive for the chain on the macro scale) but I do have difference with those that think they deserve a proverbial cookie or high praise for it.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I was taught to do the right thing... even when nobody is looking. That being said, we could very well just upvote ourselves and our alts ad infinitum if our focus is merely the accumulation of HP but can imagine how droll of a place this would be? As you have probably heard a million times by now, nevertheless it is their stake and they will do with it what they will.
But isn't it much better to upvote others for a job well done, friends, strangers, and even our enemies as an exhibit of our willingness to come together despite personal differences. It may seem absurd to upvote people that dislike you but perhaps I will make it a point to do so from time to time.
I will do so starting today
I will quote a religious text for my conclusion. To they that are of the world, such activity may perplex, confound, or bring about further contempt... But that's not your problem. It's theirs.
Luke 6:27-28 KJVS
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, [28] Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
May we be reminded to, with incentive or not, to do good for good's sake. Thank you!
This post was created using the @ecency Mobile Android App.
They also have a referral program that promotes users to onboard to our great chain. Sign ups using my referral linkusing my link are appreciated.
Ditch Partiko and get eCency today!
| PlayStore - Android | Windows, Mac, Linux |
|---|---|
 |  |
| AppStore - iOS | Web |
 |  |