RE: Opinion Poll - Flagging on the Steemit Platform
I've used flagging for malicious posts (phishing) or genuine spam. I'd never flag a post just because I disagree with the opinion or content of a post, or if a person takes an opposing view to mine.
It should be a fair system, but does seem open to abuse by whales who don't follow this sort of etiquette, and most recently by a horde of sock puppet accounts trying to rip off the system.
It could also be open to abuse from government troll farms. (e.g. US DoD, Hasbara, etc) It's hard to compete as an individual against an room full of full time paid operators, whose opinion you'll never change because they themselves likely don't believe in it in the first place.
On a decentralized platform like steemit, I think the only action that can be taken is for the community to team up and work together to identify and relentless flag bad actors. Make it pointless for them to continue to operate on the platform.
To do this, we need.... a PLAN....
There you point out something important.
You would not flag people you disagree with, BUT others may very well use flagging for that as well.
In fact there appear to be bots (sockpuppets) supported by whales doing attacks of this kind.
And also post bogus comments just to undermine as much as they can.
However, this activity is also a sign that the truth is hurting the right people. And the very existence of sockpupets shows the world how those people think and act.
So if you see my steempower go down even more after today... Well.
Decentralised, yes. But limited. It could be far more decentralised.
Flagging bad actors is a kind of censorship. Who decides the definition of 'BAD' ?
If I'm vocal to the powerful leaders then the definition of 'BAD' depends on the personality of those leaders. The current PM of my country would flag the crap out of me.
A plan would indeed be good.
The plan could be as easy as setting up an account that participating community members follow. This account would have a thread to which abusers of the system are reported. The report is then evaluated, and a post made to the group calling for a campaign of action (downvotes) against the offending account(s). Each comment or reply for which they offend will face a torrent of downvotes.
The community (as a collective of individuals) should ultimately decide if a post / comment is 'BAD'. This means that there would some fluidity in the definition, with individual choice made by community members of if they wish to participate in action.
I don't really see flagging of posters of malicious or spam posts geared to game the system as censorship. This would only be so if there was just a single cough "fact checker" performing the role. And to me, any posts regarded as "tasteless", "inappropriate" or just something somebody disagrees with, should never even be considered by the community for action.
This plan has not been completely thought through, and holes likely exist, but hey, it’s a starting point !!
There are already plenty of whale wars going on!
yeah, and it is easy to become collateral damage. those guppies have big tail fins