You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Beyond the Ethics of Bot Voting | Steemit Beginner's Series

in #steemit7 years ago (edited)

A couple of thoughts:

.1. If you sell/rent your SP, you're also bypassing others disagreeing with your SP being used in a manner they do not choose, as could be seen in the Ranchorelaxo and Haejin situation - you get the SBD from people bidding on your bot, or from wheover you sell it to, and people can't actually flag your content, because there isn't any.

.2. I'm sorry, but the following statement is so "no" on so many levels to me:

"Ethical concerns are a personal matter."

One of the core things about morality is that you can't go, "X is wrong/has a different opinion, and I don't mind," when it comes to moral issues, as opposed to say, liking a different colour.

Ethical issues in most schools of thought are exactly the ones where we say that we should be concerned what others are saying, or that it impacts us. You don't have to go all Kantian to go with, "This works so long not everyone does it. So long only one person does, they win. So long everyone does it, the system falls apart."

The question is whether this applies to vote-bots, but if it does, then you can see why it being an ethical issue, would mean it's not "merely personal." Yes, each person has to decide for themselves, if that is what you meant, but it is not merely personal.

.3. The concentration of power within Steemit is an issue. That people earn more money which in turn lets them earn more money, while not creating content is a byproduct of the vote-bot situation and the way Steemit is made.

.4. A thing most newcomers ignore while looking at how much bots are worth it is the essentially "free SP."

Suppose you pay 5 SBD for a vote, get 12 STU vote back. After curation, assuming it's about 20% cut (it often is), you end up earning 4.8 SBD, which is a "loss", but you also get $4.8 USD worth of Steem, and end up making more than your share.

From a perspective of money-making, so long you find bots whose makers ensured would not end up losing you money, you have no reason to not buy votes. Except it destroys the trending section (look at the Promoted section, or you should've looked before everyone there started using bots to see the point), and the economy is disrupted by it majorly. As nobody actually ends up earning anything if everyone uses it (because it'd end up with the same reward pool split, percentage wise), except the people offering the votes.

And that's what it boils down to. Should everyone use the bots, the only ones making anything out of them would be the ones selling the votes.

Should everyone but you use the bots, you'll end up losing even more.

Sort:  

@geekorner, I appreciate all of your well-thought-out points. To clarify my ambiguous language, "Ethical concerns are a personal matter," meaning you as an individual have your self-defined ethical concerns and it is not my place as a journalist to lean toward any ethical ideology in my presentation of the facts I've gathered in an effort to sway your personal convictions​. That, in itself, would be unethical.

As for your paraphrased definition of morality and concerns regarding moral issues,

morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Right and wrong are inherently subjective judgments.

Thank you for taking the time to read my research points and recorded numbers found in my beginner's knowledge quest. I look forward to writing more on this subject and would be grateful to connect with you on Discord for a further chat regarding your knowledge of the upper-level financial workings with Steemit.

Right and wrong are inherently subjective judgments.

Yes, but one of the hallmarks of moral judgments is that you can't just shrug at people doing what you find to be "wrong." Unlike other subjective personal evaluations.

I agree with you here. I've had a similar-perspective argument with one increasingly belligerent debater who asked me "WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF SOMEONE WERE PUTTING CIGARETTES OUT ON YOUR DOG!?!?!?!" I realized then that my response to moral disagreements may be different than others' approach.

While I'm not the type of police someone's actions that I believe are wrong based on my personal moral convictions, I'm more apt to investigate to fully understand that person's perspective, to see their why, and once I feel I have a sound grasp of their experience, I then make a decision as to how I will move forward to right the wrong in a constructive manner.

I strive to not let opinion, judgment, morality, and emotions determine my response to conflict. Probably why I became a journalist. 🤓

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 58387.03
ETH 2359.14
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.37