Opinion Poll - Flagging on the Steemit Platform
This is an opinion poll created to allow steemit users to engage, and ignite a debate about the way that flagging works on the steemit platform. It is a fair way to get some hard numbers, on a contentious issue being debated by many users, including witnesses. Click on the link below (view post on Steefun) to login to Steefun using steemconnect. A secure way to login to steefun, and vote anonymously.
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
I'm glad to read this post, interesting that you mention it and actually take action with a poll.
I never used flagging yet as I expect that the ones I would like to flag have more power then me an may eventually use that power against me.
I would like to see what others think about this or to read a human readable outline of how flagging works in a newbie vs whale situation.
What system is in place to keep the fairness in balance?
Thanks @bifilarcoil for your insightful comment. That is indeed an excellent question, that will need to be addressed by the high SP users and/or witnesses themselves. They are the only true power and influence on the platform from what I have observed so far.
I'm only fairly new here myself, so I'm not really in a position to know the ins and outs of the platform and how it operates. I do however have my own opinion on the matter, which is probably obvious by now. I'm just trying to get the ball rolling, by getting some hard numbers, to enlighten everyone one way or the other whether users believe the system has been implemented in a fair and balanced fashion, that encourages everyone to use the platform without being punished and potentially driven away by frustration and feeling powerless.
So there actually is a "power structure"? (can't wait for a minimememe sayin "POWER STRUCTURE")
Sorry ...
I'm also very new here and it is very difficult to see what goes on behind the scenes. Just when you think you are gaining some insights, then something comes along that makes me question everything once again.
For now the 'implemented system' is completely unclear to me. The rules that i do see i tend to experience as 'monetary based' rules to impose limits on scammers. But as can be expected, anyone will use those very rules and tools of the implemented system for their own purpose, good or bad.
The platform is very young so it will take time to improve.
People who veeeery carefully play by the monetary based rules will make a lot of money.
But that only works for 'monetarians' (i just invented that word) The world is not about money, it's more about humanity. And even that is questionable. But for a platform like this the human aspect should be the foundation to build rules upon. Not money.
Since money is probably the very reason why this platform was created I wonder how that works.
I tried to read the documents on what the platform is based but the average user will not even go there.
This makes me wonder how this platform can ever become fair.
I see a huge potential in this kind of platform. Yet there should be a better balance.
I'm only scratching the surface here.
When people on the street speak to eachother they don't do monetary upvotes for 7 days and then base the rest of their lives on that. And then get flagged by bankers, without having the power push back.
As you can see there is a lot to think about.
Yep, its a huge conversation...
Lets hope they don't flag the messenger