You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Shadowbans Fulltimebot Net
Sad that every front end didnt ban his bot possy. He wasnt going to stop and its hurting the user experience. He bought his stake, hes free to fill up the blockchain with whatever he wants. Front ends are a different thing. They need to take their users into account. If they dont want to show 6000 spam comments on a post that leads to your browser crashing, they dont need to.
Sure, but I'm going to continue to maintain the idea that it shouldn't be Steemit's responsibility to moderate comments. Just let the original posters do it. Sorted.
Sure. Thats a better choice. Id love to see that. Self moderated posts would get rid of most drama we have now. But right now this is the best we have.
I feel very strongly that censoring the information centrally instead of doing whatever was necessary to let the account holders do that themselves was a terrible step in the wrong direction.
The only way this doesn't get worse - and even potentially impact both of us in time - is if it is a temporary measure that precedes delivering that functionality to the account holders of affected blogs themselves.
The only speech that merits protection is speech someone hates. That includes pics of Bernies poop. I hate it. I would ban it from my blog comments section had I the power.
They banned it from mine, and never asked me if I wanted to see it. That's not why I came to Steem social media, but what I came here to avoid.
Saying 'this is the best we have' is true enough, but I am sure you will note that it can be applied to every actual poorly implemented thing men do, and it is most often used to preclude calls for improvement. If that isn't what you intend by saying it, I hope you'll call for the individuals to have the power to censor their own blogs, and ending the UI's censorship of the information we are allowed to see.
2 days ago i went to the Steempeak discord and argued addition of the exact option you mentioned. Its quite a long discussion. You can see the discussion in their discord chat.
You can also leave feedback there if you agree or disagree with me and they will maybe consider adding it. Discord server link:https://discord.gg/QPAhA7
@valued-customer you have no SP, so what you are saying is you want other users to use their vote power to get of spam. Animal control is doing like 50 thousand spam posts and upvoting them to 10 cents each, the idea other users should police that is flat out fucking retarded. Deleting spam isn't censorship.
You're wrong on all counts. I do have some SP, users have no need to expend SP on blocking posters on their blogs, or if the act of blocking each of the bots does take RC's it's relatively little. Perhaps brand new users might be unable to muster the necessary RC's - but FTG isn't just spamming random blogs, he's attacking specific targets, and all of them have nominal RC's necessary to block each of his bots from posting on their blogs.
The idea that centralized control of whose upvotes are visible on these UI's is preferable to bloggers having the ability and responsibility to police their own blogs is retarded. You are the only one to make such a bizarre claim, and I think you may be a bit off.
Deleting posts is censorship. Just because you call it spam doesn't mean I do. In this particular case we are in agreement that this is spam. There are probably people that find thousands of pics of Bernie's poop desirable. I neither want to prevent them from having their hoard of beloved pics, nor enable you or anyone else to do so.
I reckon you, I, and the UI's should all stick to our knitting - which isn't determining what other people call spam, or what they get to see or not. You may disagree, but that only makes you disagreeable.