I don't think that forcing people to reveal their true identity will end the corruption or maladaptive behavior you observe. Some of the greatest evildoers of history were quite famous. Many of the most evil deeds being committed in the modern day are also done in the open (drug war, Venezuelan socialism, Syrian war).
Forcing everyone to reveal their identities will just drive away those who need to be anonymous for very good reasons: the gay men in Arab countries, the women being stalked by exes, the drug users subject to kidnapping and imprisonment, the government dissidents.
IMHO, the problem with Steemit is not secrecy or anonymity, but the fact that everyone is forced to be part of the same global community. Right now, the evil whales can grief everyone on the platform. Their victims have no means of cutting off access to the bad actors. What's needed, in other words, are tools for creating and managing property lines.
People behave better when such boundaries exist, because they know that if they behave badly enough, they will cut off from the rest of their community.
Thus, Steemit needs tools to allow people to create and manage their own communities, such as:
- tools for creating/managing a community
- tools for vetting members before joining
- tools for booting / muting / editing members
- tools for rewarding good behavior/punish bad behavior
- tools for vouching for members
If such tools existed, the miscreants would have to behave, lest they be refused entry to most communities. The scope of the damage they could cause would be limited to communities that they created / owned themselves. Eventually, the only people they could grief would be each other.
There is a balance as well I think. Security is critical, but there is no way to ever guarantee that 100% no matter how much transparency you try to have. People who are willing to break the law will always find ways to get away with it. Should the whole world adopt radical transparency because some people are criminals? Are all crimes equal?
I do see a point behind taking a stance to favor certain designs but I do not think unlimited transparency is a good idea. I think people who are not thieves, not breaking the law, not deliberately damaging the community, do not always benefit from for instance having the amount of money they are earning or holding known to the entire world. As we know, this can make people even bigger targets and nothing the blockchain can do can protect people , so the transparency done wrong actually makes it much worse.
Some privacy in my opinion is critical for improving security. The privacy on the level of amounts people hold and amounts sent or received, should be private between the parties, or as transparent as they like, as in they should be able to select which accounts can see how much money they have or their transactions rather than have everyone see everything like in Steemit.
Privacy, as a general point, is a fundamental right as I see it. I have the right to privacy in any aspect of my life, whether it be my Steem balance, my personal history or my genetic make-up. Radical transparency will not contribute to more effective self-government. In one point in the above post the author refers to privacy coins being detrimental to effective self-governance of the community, yet later criticises the implementation of AML/KYC laws that attempt to prevent the illicit use of crypto assets that fund illegal activities. These points are directly contradictory.
I choose to write under a pseudonym because I wrote mainly about crypto currency investments. In the real world I am financial adviser and cannot have my professional identify associated with my online identity. Not because I am writing inappropriate content, but because the law has not yet caught up with the crypto landscape and current legislation in my country (Australia) would prevent me from posting for fear of jeopardising my real world business. There is no such thing as a licenced crypto adviser, so to post under my real name would leave me open to losing the license I do have to advise on other more mainstream investments. At the same time it is the knowledge gained from my real world occupations that I hope some crypto investors may benefit from. So I am faced with the choice of either creating what I hope is valuable content, and sharing it with the Steemit community under a pseudonym, or not posting at all.
I am also a military veteran and have considered posting about my experiences both in conflict and since returning to mainstream society. Some of these posts would discuss intensely personal issues and I have considered creating a separate Steemit account to share these. Once again not because I have anything sinister to hide, but simply because I would rather share such personal details in a manner that is not linked to my more public persona, either on Steemit or anywhere else.
Well said and I completely agree with you.
Agreed! The reasons why people might want to remain anonymous are many and varied. IMHO, tools for combatting bad behavior should be addressed to the behavior, not the identity of the person exhibiting the behavior.
Interesting idea on building better property borders. But I am not sure that solves the concerns about "raping the rewards pool" as some people call it. There is after all only one reward pool. Just because you isolate yourself by associating with a few communities, at the end of the day the entire reward pool has to be allocated to the entire set of people participating on the site.
Isolating property borders would require isolating reward pools. Steem as a base currency, yet rewards to be generated in SMTs, curations to received in SMTs and the SMTs will be valued based on Steem Power the owner accoutns have. Outsider won't be able to flag a community member or upvote them.
This is the solution we are looking for. You are so on the spot!! Discovering a gem after reading through a 100 comments!! :P
I also agree with you on the need to have many different communities. Not everyone has the same morals or views on what is right and wrong.