What Does Justified Flagging Look Like?
Recently, I wrote an article that criticized the use of flagging by a particular user. I made several points about what constitutes flagging abuse. Overall, it was a fantastic conversation, and I thank everyone who was involved. Now I'd like to provide an example of what justified flagging looks like.
I've had occasion to use Freezepeach in the past as well as the present, and I thank @r0nd0n for his exceptional work in that area. As a consequence, I'm now hanging around their Discord server, lest I forget about them again like I did earlier this week (lol). So it was in hanging around that I came across this gem:
At first glance, it seems serious enough, right? If there are users advocating for child pornography, there should be a public outcry about it. However, I'd never heard of anything like this from @blocktrades. Since my curiosity and caution were piqued, I examined that post and the other post that was linked prior to it.
The user who made the first post I linked had been on the comment thread of the second post prior. While there, this user made what I, or pretty much anyone else, would argue are defamatory statements without substantiation. They were based entirely on the conversation in the post, which was likewise defamatory and libelous. This was pointed out to the user and was plainly evident for anyone who read the comments without immediately jumping into hyper-emotional overdrive.
@blocktrades' post explaining his position
The comment referenced in the comment above
And then there's this, which deserves a facepalm by any marginally rational person
The original comment made by Vitalik was a descriptive analysis of a particular issue (heroin use, or drug use more generally) by analogical reasoning (comparing child porn to drug use). At no point in time could he have been construed to be advocating or endorsing child pornography in any capacity. Likewise, others made those same comments, and @blocktrades echoed that sentiment as well. In response, the user above jumped off the deep end and began making what anyone could argue were libelous statements, declaring that @blocktrades "must be a pedophile" and that he "likes" child porn. Anyone with even a modicum of reasoning or sense could see this was clearly not the case, and no evidence of any kind was presented to back this assertion.
This, I think, provides a clear example of when flagging is eminently justified. Libel can carry without legal ramifications. While I don't think that's going to be the case in this instance, the fact that libel is recognized as entitling the defamed party to compensation suggests the seriousness of the act. What was described and shown above is arguably that kind of behavior. Abusive behavior like that can, and I would strongly should, be flagged into oblivion. This isn't a simple difference of opinion, or some disagreement over how well-rewarded a post is. This is out-and-out abusive behavior, and it should be as derided and mocked as any abusive flag.
Good on you, @blocktrades. Thank you for providing me a perfect example of when you should absolutely use a flag. :D
If you want to vote for me as a witness, cast your vote here! Scroll down until you see this text box and type in my name.
Beep! Beep! This humvee will be patrolling by and assisting new veterans, retirees, and military members here on Steem. @shadow3scalpel will help by upvoting posts from a list of members maintained by @chairborne and responding to any questions replied to this comment.
this is very creative post on steemit.I think that you creation is very essencial..✌✌✌
Thank you, I think?
yes my dear friend @anarcho-andrei...best of luck..
What's really weird to me is I've always considered Blocktrades as an entity, or a program and didn't know he was an individual.
That said, take away the topic of the argument and it's still the same...
@blocktrades is a company account as far as I know, but it's a homegrown operation. Not anything big or corporate.
This brings up some general issues that are worth discussing. But be warned--it's spiral thinking (as opposed to circular thinking,) and I can't offer solutions.
What this puts me in mind of are the people I've seen rage against boundaries, the uber-anarchists who believe nothing should be regulated. Yet if someone murdered their child, they'd be the first to cry for justice, which in a peaceful society can only be found through law.
I think it comes down to thresholds, this deciding of which behavior should be prohibited and mocked, and which behavior is an entitlement based on our perception of freedom. Don't misunderstand, Andrei. You know me well. I'd have flagged that moron even faster than Blocktrades did. I have zero tolerance for willful ignorance. But it could be argued that garudi had every right to state his opinion, inflammatory or not. Our personal threshold is what dictates our response. My threshold for disruptive behavior is significantly lower than yours. This means that by default, I agree with you on every point regarding the Blocktrades flag. But someone with a higher threshold can reasonably argue the flag is still censorship, since it removes garudi's reward for joining the conversation, and penalizes him quite severely.
Just some more confusion thrown into the mix. Have fun with it! clicks "post" with an evil laugh. . . .
Well, it's a good thing we have logic and reason with which we can tease out what things materially harm others or not. The problem I have with those uber-anarchists is the same as your problem: they think that all rules and laws are some artificial construction. It's the same crowd that reject all authority without realizing that private property necessarily requires an authority of at least one: the individual owner.
What I've been trying to get at is personal thresholds don't factor into this. Libel is clearly defined in a myriad of ways. Libel is one such case use for flagging; any flag of libelous writing (which I would press you to find someone who could reasonably argue those comments were not) is justified.
To the person who'd argue the point you made as devil's advocate: raping someone is just a person asserting their right to have sexual intercourse, by that reasoning. Are we supposed to excuse rapists for their behavior? I think not.
There is a law. It's objective, it's universal, and it doesn't depend on an external authority to be applied or discovered.
I totally agree. I mean, I agree with this even more than you agree with it. Probably not really, but just sayin. After all, I'm the person who argues for laws requiring people to spay and neuter their pets. Not a popular position. Please don't throw a shoe at me.
I guess I'm just experimenting with thought processes we might hear in an international community, from cultures where laws and values can be so different from ours. Will we allow Nazis on the platform to make damaging anti-Semitic remarks? What about ISIS? Would we give them a green light to spew hate? Worst of all, what if Westboro Baptist Church gets a Steemit account? I hope like hell that everything you just said bears up in those circumstances as well.
No shoes being thrown here :D With regards to your questions, I'll say this: Steemit is public insofar as anyone can sign up. However, it's still a community. Like any community on Earth, there are informal rules about what is and is not taboo. Social mores and social taboos are a natural feature of any social organization. While I have less of an issue with Nazis and the Westboro Baptist Church than I do ISIS, ultimately if the community doesn't want it, the community doesn't need to have it.
However, opinions that are considered hateful should be decried in public, loudly and vociferously. Utilizing flags because one's opinion is revolting is something entirely different from flagging libel or plagiarism.
My vote power is weak after the past few days. But if I could put triple digits on that with 100%, I would.
I'll give you my 8 cent vote for your words of approval and support :D
LOL! :-)
I think you're both building a strawman argument about anarchism. It isn't opposition to law, it's opposition to arbitrary laws enforced through a corrupt monopoly. Government does not produce or provide justice.
I don't disagree, as I mentioned in my comments. However, I've been told by self-proclaimed black flag anarchists that law doesn't exist. Period. No qualifying remark whatsoever.
Ah, the pseudo-nihilist control freak "anarchists."
I see you're familiar with the people I'm talking about. XD
That is great EQ demonstrate by @blocktrades . He can abuse that power if he wants to. Can’t say that to other people though.
This is an understatement
What do you mean? I'm sorry, I didn't really follow what you wrote.
I mean blocktrade got a great ‘Emotional Intelligence’ by not pushing that flag button even when he is getting an insult. With that power, a small person in steemit could get a big fall on reputation.