You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Targeted Flagging of Posts and Comments from Accounts @heather2000 & @thinkingtime
Thanks for sharing; your information is useful. I upvoted and resteemed. I also commented on @v4vapid and @ura-soul posts regarding this issue, and some of the same members that you mentioned. I feel much the same as you in this regard. Personally, I think that downvotes should only be downvotes and have no (or at least very minimal) financial, reputation or visibility effect. I'd suggest reserving flagging for pointing out illegal activity only.
It's going to be an interesting issue for the witnesses to sort out. The biggest problem comes with how everyone defines certain things like 'hate speech' and 'truth'. If you ask 100 people what their definitions are, you will probably get at least 20 different answers and definitions.
Yeah, killer important issues I'd say. To me, forget trying to determine whether or not something is 'hate speech' and 'truth'. Shouldn't even be an issue unless it's illegal. That's why we have laws - this stuff has already been sorted out there. No need to figure it out again. And it's certainly not a good idea to follow FB, Twitter or YouTube - ends up in obvious censorship. If it's not illegal, it should be protected as free speech. Otherwise you're faced with never-ending contentious issues to solve. Legal or illegal. 1 or 0. Clean and simple and protects free speech as is possible.
Although I mostly agree, I'm not so certain or convinced that it's simple. There are differences within laws depending on where you live. Which 'laws' would be applied? What would be considered 'legal' or 'illegal'. That becomes another can of worms?
If steemit becomes big, you will also have users trickle over from all of the other social media platforms where flagging and gangs are a lot more rampant. I could be wrong or ill-informed (I have never had a twitter or facebook account)......just my thoutghts
I agree with your message there. It is indeed a can of worms, but at least it is a known can of worms that can be reasonably, and objectively determined. The problem with hate speech is that beliefs of what 'hate speech' actually is varies widely from person to person, group to group. Same issue with 'truth'.
If Steemit becomes big like Facebook, it seems to me that it would be destroyed by scammers and everyone looking to make a buck. Not to mention this flagging/$power issue. I've seen comments by people saying that Steemit can't program it's way out of a wet paper bag. These sorts of fundamentals with such large flaws make me wonder what the heck they're doing. But as you said, just my thoughts.
Yes, stay tuned!