RE: Obsessive Downvoting /Tagging Posts- A Method of Silencing & Censoring Curators on Steemit
After reading and voting for your very well reasoned and important article, I feel that I must weigh in here with an observation that has been raised before, but is "on point" with your topic and thesis.
I would attribute a significant part of the problem you have described to a basic semantic issue with the Steemit ecosystem. I perceive that there is a fundamental confusion of meaning designed into the system from the beginning.
Positive feedback on an article is called an "Up-Vote," while its exact opposite is called a "Flag."
The words have entirely different semantics and connotation, while being identical but opposite in effect.
In my humble opinion, the "powers that be" should seriously consider creating a separate and distinct mechanism for "flagging" posts. This mechanism should be clearly defined in terms of its purpose and effect. It should be limited to the expression of disapproval of universally recognized aberrant behavior, such as explicit racism, hate speech, system gaming/cheating/theft of resources, and such like.
Without having examined the "under the Steemit hood" details, I suspect that Down Voting presently also negatively affects reputation scores. I would propose that if that is presently the case, such affect be shifted to the new "Flag" function only.
As such, a new explicit "Flag" function would serve to draw negative attention to bad actors in a way that could be more readily independently evaluated by anyone without having to go to the extreme analysis that you have had to do to make your case here.
Up Votes and Down Votes would remain unchanged in terms of affecting the value of an article as an expression of one's personal evaluation.
Of course, it is true that the value of an article affects its place in the trending page. However, that is clearly not the same as censorship or as affecting reputation.
😄😇😄
do you realize that "Hate Speech" is what has been used to bring censorship to social media and exactly the reason that emboldens people like Bloom to flag on Steemit? What constitutes hate speech changes from country to country. Denying the Holocaust is hate speech in several countries though all evidence shows the Nazi gas chambers were a complete lie. So even the Truth has become Hate Speech.
Hate speech is not "universally abhorrent beahviour".....what is abhorrent is people who are trying to limit people's free speech.
Unless someone incites violence or engages in abusive behaviour he should be by 1st amendment rights be allowed to say whatever he wants. I remember seeing Dan and Ned in an interview making a commitment to the 1st amendment when Steemit launched....I wonder what happened since then.
Thanks, @lavater, for this response.
I am too quick and careless in having adopted that term (hate speech). Thank you for pointing that out and describing how the term has been used to excuse oppression. I withdraw it, with appreciation for your clarification.
However, would you be kind enough to comment on my other descriptors? I.e., explicit racism, system gaming/cheating/theft of resources? You've added "inciting violence," about which I also agree.
Do you agree or disagree with my principle point? If people on Steemit are being abusive, engaging in ad-hominem attacks, and so forth, do you see the value of having a separate flagging mechanism?
And by the way, I don't believe our rights originate in any document. They are either real, inherent, and unalienable, or they don't exist at all.
Nice to "meet" you here, and thanks again for responding.
yes I agree with settng up a separate flag system for clear cut abuses: plagiarism, harassment, abusive language etc
Opinions as long as they are expressed in a civil way and not inciting violence, no matter how "abhorrent", should not be flagged.
I think we are "in violent agreement..." ;)
Thank you both for your comments. I agree with you both that the frequently misused term "hate speech" can have a negative impact on free speech. That's why it would be best if there was some sort of two step process involved in downvotes and flagging. One account can downvote/flag and then a second account could weigh in.. these two would obviously not be two accounts working together. I think that would help catch this sort of abuse.
100% agree with you lavater. We need to fight hard against those who are trying to take away our ability to speak up. The 1st Amendment needs to be abided by and upheld.
I think EOS and SMT's are the shiny new toys, Steemit is soooo last year.
It does. The reason @berniesanders reputation is -18 (last I saw) is because he has incited even more powerful accounts to retaliate against his flags.
It is for this reason that I so oppose the use of flags except in cases of abuse of free speech. If you disagree with someone, then state your case. If you flag them, you aren't disagreeing, you are attempting to censor them.
If you censor because you disagree, YOU are the problem.
Note: I am using 'you' in the general sense.
I appreciate that you've responded on this topic.
I would really appreciate it if you could provide references to current Steemit code or documentation to support this, if possible? Thanks in advance...
@skeptic can tell you personally =p @berniesanders flagged him into the negative more than once, IIRC.
Best I can recall, the white paper might have been where I read it. If you haven't read it, it's not too long, and relatively math/jargon free. It's linked in the menu just to the right of your avatar pic.
I don't really recall where I gained the specific understanding, except by watching what happened to @skeptic, and then @berniesanders, in return.
Only a flagger with higher rep than yours can decrease your rep, IIRC, unlike rewards. I bet Google could search up particular and precise details.
Thanks for the added comments.
If I can just block these two accounts..that would work in the short run. I think this is something Steemit should look into as well.
What I'd like to see is an end to flagging:
FLAGGING
I want to see that bollocks GONE!
A downvote could carry the average weight of the upvotes on that comment or post.
Why should a fired up numpty with $800 in their wallet be allowed to censor a comment by some lowlife plankton with only $2.45 in their wallet?
Flagging is censorship by those who have more money, exactly like in the real world, but Steemit does not have to be the same as the real world!
I gather from some of the comments on my previous posts on this subject,
that a few people strongly disagree with this opinion (but most of them are not plankton...)
https://steemit.com/steemit/@sift666/my-unreasonable-list-of-demands-for-a-better-steemit
Well said. If each person's down-vote carried the same weight wouldn't it mean that only behaviour/content that the majority finds objectionable would be penalized?
Exactly.. for a downvote to hold more weight than someone elses upvote is robbery.
Yeah.. I have yet to figure out how much their flags and downvotes are worth.. I didn't see it on steemd.
This add on is handy - https://steemit.com/steemdev/@armandocat/steemit-more-info-1-4-chrome-extension-firefox-extension
This is awesome! Exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much! Added it and now I can see how much bloom was downvoting me lol
It's really handy - I like to go into settings and change a few things - mainly disabling the histogram.
It was bloom that inspired my post from 4 months ago
See with a reputation of abuse and harrasement why hasn't anything been done to limit his ability to target accounts like he did with mine and others? It just seems to go against the whole premise of steemit being a community built on cordial interactions which is what I was told by many people in the beginning.
The vast majority of people on Steemit are awesome but occasionally you can encounter one who isn't.
The reason they get away with it for a while is because if we start flagging them we will be just like them.
But you are now just at the point of having full backup - if any of your posts ever get flagged from now on your followers will back you up and this spineless weasel will probably stick to harassing people who don't have backup.
Quality content wins over time and you have that - sooner or later this guy is going to piss off the wrong person and learn what an angry whale can do to his reputation!
It does go against the premise of cordiality that Steemit demonstrates.
This premise, however, is an effect of rewards being potential to posts and comments. Thus, the prospect of 'doing something' is also counter to the same source of cordiality, as it would entail potential to draw flags.
While some folks will do this, in some circumstances, such as your own, where you have a dedicated following with sufficient stake to counter the flags and remain immune to them, those circumstances are both rare, and unlikely to pursue the offender beyond the limits of your blog.
Commenting so I remember to check this when I am off my phone
GET OFF YOUR PHONE! - you will turn into a bot...
Did something happen to this add on? I don't see today @sift666
It seems to be working OK for me - that is using Firefox - I usually use Opera but I just use Firefox for Steemit because the add on doesn't work with Opera
Yeah it seems to be working again.. not sure what happened.. I haven't changed browsers.
You might find this of interest - sometimes things all work out (there is a bit of a back story to this!)
https://steemit.com/steemit/@techslut/why-i-am-quitting-steemit-and-you-should-to
I strongly agree with your sentiment, however, I also strongly agree with the logical corollary, which is that their upvote shouldn't carry more weight either.
It makes of the right to free speech the right of money to speak.
I vehemently oppose that, because it renders humanity chattel.
While providing rewards for content has produced an exciting community on Steemit, stake weighting voting power has produced endless problems, injustice, and oligarchical concentration of rewards.
While those with the most stake, including the founders, who mined theirs, large investors, witnesses, etc., disagree, as the parties benefiting from the abusive situation, they should not be expected to altruistically seek justice.
They should, but such moral and ethical standards are increasingly scarce, and we shouldn't naively expect them to.
When wealth is used altruistically, such as @surpassinggoogle not self voting with a delegated stake from @ned, or @ned making that delegation without charge, as have @fulltimegee and @stellabelle, those people have shown a remarkable adherence to principle, clearly above and beyond what is common.
Those of them that still support stake weighted voting haven't fully realized the implications of it, and I suspect that they will, in time. IIRC, they all support stake weighted voting, while fully demonstrating an altruistic dedication to principle.
I think this simply demonstrates that people are incapable of perfect understanding, just like me.
If the principle of stake weighting is wrong in flags, it is wrong in upvotes too. Either way, it's wrong, and you are right.
Thanks!
It's a tricky one - equal weight votes give rise to moron zones like youtub...
I don't think so, because rewards. It isn't that stake weighting causes people to be civil on Steemit, but that being uncivil might prevent them from being rewarded.
Youtool rewards no comments, AFAIK, and fewer and fewer channels not owned by buddies of Eric Schmidt.
This is an excellent idea. It would mean an end to buying influence and destroying people's reputation and business... A frequent tactic of the current Social Media Mafia.
It really is something that should be dealt with. On all of our other media platforms we can choose to block an abuser... but here it seems that we are expected to just deal with their abuse, until they choose to stop if they choose to stop.
Agreed.