You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: As Steem grows, so does the presence of the trolls
There is also good in this. Some people (not you) are just evil and will post lies to destroy your reputation. There must be a form of policing to protect the innocent from 'fiends' surely? I would say though that there should be a way of redress. If you feel aggrieved you should have a channel to go down to voice your discontent. It never pays in the long run to publish discontent or names on the block chain. X
If they don't start none, won't be none. Their flags and comments hurt the people that they flag and they know this. It is arbitrary and these people don't work for steemit.inc. So it is ok to be a bully if you have a lot of power? But it is nokay to fight back and namedrop because it might hurt their feelings? There is no good in Nazi behavior.
That is why a system of redress is required. Complaining on line is no good, we require a pathway to an arbiter who can legitimately look into the issue. Flagging by us would make the post visible to this arbiter who can make the 'official' decision. Better than causing grievances unnecessarily. Just my thoughts, as I said I have been on the receiving end of nasty people who published lies about me. The post did not get general coverage because it was flagged up by several of the people you now criticize. There are two sides to every story. I am sorry if this offends it is not meant to, I just want to make you aware of the other side to the story. X
What would that look like, who would be the arbiter? Who would have admin privilege on a platform inherently against privileges such as those because the sure fire way to undermine the whole platform and community. What do you propose?
OMG I don't know. I am sorry I got drawn into this, I only wanted to give a sense of the other side. I come from a country with the rule of law, so generally, respect for authority is usual. I expect authority to play fair, as I expect the powers that be will play fair. I am not used to the concept of free for all. I am now withdrawing from this debate. I wish everyone, peace, goodwill and happiness. X
Why are you resulting to exasperation and wish to drop your initial proposal, I only asked what you propose. This has nothing to do with rule of law or countries, we were discussing creating arbiter positions which you suggested, I thought you could tell us what you propose, and wouldn't be some kind of assault or demand.
Honestly, I am not getting exasperated. I have had a few harsh replies to my comments. I only wanted to put a suggestion forward. I have no interest in creating aggression. I love this platform and get great delight from the interaction from like minded people. I just pointed out the other side of flagging. I had a malicious assault on myself and it was thanks to several of the people who had been named, that this malicious post was stopped from going out fully. There is an absolute need for someone to 'police' the site for awful content. I just thought there should be someone who the aggrieved can go to to redress their issue.
This someone has got to have the power to take an action and also over turn an action where necessary. He/she therefore must be part of Steemit, a paid employee perhaps. My thoughts on rule of law were stated to just say, we all have to trust in this. The arbiter must be trusted to do the job, that is all I meant. I am lucky; generally, I have confidence in the role of government and policing, because my life experiences have shown me that overall, I can trust my government/police to follow rules. (always exceptions of course, that is why I say generally)! I do ramble. Hope this answers you. Kind Regards. X
That would be nice, but the problem is that even if you could get the competent people, and enough of them, you couldn't get the funding for it, and then you would have to deal with issues of corruption or otherwise bias.
The people that police the site for awful content are the people that pollute the site with awful content, and everyone else. The community polices itself.
You, among others, believe that terms like "malicious assault" give your story more credibility and importance, but it doesn't, you were flagged, by the community, and more precisely, your content, the content you authored was flagged by the community. There was no boogieman on the internet, who assaulted you, as much as you like to equate it to such, it was simply people curating content, or better yet, people speaking their minds.
Like the troll that now tags along everywhere I go, you are affected by words on a screen that strangers type up. I am not saying that those things don't affect people, or they shouldn't, I am simply drawing attention to that fact, that is usually equated to what you eat I don't shit. What they think of you, what they comment, is not what you must think or what is true, it's simply what they think of you. I am not saying that don't care about what people say or think about you at all, because I think everything catering for considerable should be considered so that excludes considering insulting remarks, or blatant lies, but not a reasoned insult pertaining to what we were discussing.
I agree with most of your comment. However, I was not flagged it was the post put out about me which was flagged. The 'Police' did their job well in my case. I am sorry they have not in others. I really appreciate the dialogue and time you have taken to explain things to me. X
No system can ever be perfect. There has to be an element of trust that the position will not be abused. I realise there is a very fine line between restrictions and freedom. How could an Arbiter restrict though? He/she would be there only to be approached when someone feels unfairly treated. The flagging system (according to some) does not work and is being abused. Would it not be better for those who feel unfairly treated to have someone to go to rather than be angry and frustrated, live on the block chain. As to the schematics of it; there are better business brains out there than I, I just made a gentle suggestion. Sorry. X
If you read the whitepaper it talks about abuse, and it says that as long as abuse is not rampant it's ok. I have been in plenty of flag wars, I have seen a lot of flag wars, and it's not rampant and for it to be rampant nearly everyone here would have to flag each other. The only way for you to change the flagging system is by abusing it so much that it becomes rampant and a hardfork is required to change the system. The whitepaper is under the hamburger menu next to your name, it's fairly outdated but the general principles and rules haven't changed.
Thanks, I haven't read it but I have read this. https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@steemcleaners/announcing-steemcleaners-the-steemit-abuse-fighting-team
Found it while I was looking for an answer to my immediate problem....it wont let me post on steem! Last night I could not even reply to posts. The system kept telling me: bandwidth limit exceeded. Please wait to transact or power up STEEM. It just shows you how little I know! Appreciate the effort and dialogue. X
You have a good point. There should be an arbiter. Unfortunately there isn't one so we are left with the devices we have available. I do understand the need for some entity to guard against personal attacks and plagairism, however we don't need a nanny to protect us from advertising. I have discernment, I do not see the need for an anti-spam censorship brigade. I am an anarchist. This is too much like a centralized government telling people what is ok for them to see or not see i.e fascism, hence the reference to Nazis. I wish @jeffberwick , the @dollarvigilante could see this, he is big enough to put a suggestion in that would be read. And maybe heeded.
I agree there should be some mechanism to fight plagiarism I just don't see a solution better than the current system. One option is tocentralize things and put some actual steemit employed admins on to enforce some set of rules everyone has to follow.
If you don't want that centralization of power then you leave it up to the people to police themselves. When you do that people are free to use their voting power to upvote or downvote whatever they see fit, regardless of reason.
I totally agree with you. We need the powerful to take the issue forward. I am sorry I got involved because a white middle class 'wrinkly' with no experience really of the www other than using it as a fantastic research tool and publisher of my 'ramblings'; I only thought an Arbiter would help those who feel aggrieved and enable them to get redress from somewhere, without having to resort to anger. I understand their frustrations. I also understand the other side too. There is a need for someone to stop malicious content. I hope you understand I am not involved, just an outsider who tried to put another point of view forward. I agree nor disagree with anything. I have suggested this to both of the above. X
I understand and I also see that you have some of the yummiest recipes on steemit. I followed you.
You are so kind. I do feel bad about getting involved with the discussion on 'trolls'. I cannot keep my big mouth shut!!! X
Words don't hurt, curating content as crap doesn't hurt. People should be able to speak their minds in spite of your sensibilities that they shouldn't criticize or disagree with you.
It has nothing to do with that, if you read the whitepaper you would realize that. People are free to speak their minds, flagging content is curating, they can freely express their opinions of content, negative or positive.
Words on screens aren't a bully, again you are very sensitive to words on screen because you don't think it's fair that people should express their mind like they do with words on screen, people aren't attacking you, or your content, they are voting with their voting power on how many rewards, if any this content gets, but because you think they are I suggest you get off the internet as people will always use words to speak their minds and very likely they will disagree with your or even call you names because of your rationale or attack your character, but you must remember that there is a inherent and definite difference between attacking your character and attacking your person, the later involving physical harm, the former involving insulting you.