You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: IDEA: Two additional BUTTONS to meet and greet Brand New Steemit-Users when they publish they Very First Article and one to deal with haters, spammers and hecklers.
Couldnt spammers and such block the cheetah bots and other known curators?
Even aside form that, it seems kind of gamable. If youre putting your post out there, in a way its in the public domain, at least as far as others expressing their opinion of it.
I think most users don't need to be treated like hot house flowers.
@sigmajin autonomous bots like cheetah could be on a white-list along with other service-bots.
without sounding like too much of a tinfoil hat guy, who gets to decide who is whitelisted (and can vote on anything they want) and who is just a normal guy who can be blocked from voting. Because its not just bots that curate.
Maybe some workable solution could be found, but to be honest, I i question the need for it.
When stellabelle made that post that you called her out on, i thought the idea of someone needing "protection" against people saying mean things to/about them was ridiculous. And I think you and tuck both claiming that you need protection from harassment form each other is equally ridiculous.
Its not harassment, its not stalking, its not abuse. Its someone (on both sides) saying something you don't like and/or don't agree with.
My biggest fear on steemit is that people will begin to equate critical or challenging speech with "abuse" "harassment" "stalking" and other criminal terms. In this whole big feud, nothing any one of you has said rises to the level of a criminal act. Nothing either one of you has done is something that the other should want(or be given) protection against.
Ill direct you to the same case i directed tuck to. Falwell vs. hustler. Part of free speech is candid, sometimes critical dialouge. Part of it is sometimes parody. Steemit should be fostering this, not attempting to stifle it.
"Its not harassment, its not stalking, its not abuse. Its someone (on both sides) saying something you don't like and/or don't agree with."
Indeed, I agree with that. If protections against curators and commenters are to be built first we need to define what "abuse" is. Protections / filters and the like shouldn't be arbitrary based only on subjective opinions. If people are so thin-skinned they can't handle the criticisms of others perhaps they shouldn't be posting in a public place. Better they see criticism as an opportunity to evaluate their own behavior and position and whether it has positive value.
It's seems it's just adding another layer of complexity. Let's keep things simple.