You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Examining Honey from a Different Perspective - Steemit Sock Puppetry Continues
Since nobody else has commented along these lines, I'm just gonna say this. If someone wants to have multiple accounts and post multiple things from different accounts, as long as those posts aren't plagiarized etc, I don't see any issue with that. It could be seen as milking Steem but the stakeowners of Steem get to decide what to do with their votes, for better or for worse. Their own votes ultimately influence the value of the network and thus their own stake in it.
This has been my attitude on this entirely and I told ats-david that when he asked me in private chat.
I don't care who owns what account, nor do I care who votes for it. I evaluate the posts and decide whether I believe they are adding value and/or whether they constitute some form of abuse such as plagiarism. The rest of this post and others like it is indeed a witch hunt based on jealousy and perhaps competition from other bloggers or others spreading FUD on behalf of other platforms.
I didn't flag because it was already flagged by the time I saw it, but if not I probably would have, because I see the activity @ats-david and his collaborators are engaging in and posting about to be not adding value. EDIT: after revisiting the post I saw it attracting some rewards so I went ahead and added a flag
That said, I do support @ats-david having the right to post about his findings. I just don't think, as a stakeholder, those sorts of findings should be rewarded or given high visibility on the bases of stakeholder votes.
I would have to disagree with you on one point: ats.david is adding value. He is revealing facts which people can therefore make opinions about. He is also illustrating that people have a right to speak freely about things they notice. Ned, the CEO of Steemit obviously sees value in providing data to the community. Your definition of value seems a bit shallow, actually. Based on your desire to police people who are adding value to Steemit, I have just removed my vote for your witness. I think you fail to see how your actions continue to agitate honest people who care deeply about the integrity of this platform and the needs of free-thinking individuals.
I feel like flagging your comment, but I refrain from doing so because you have a right to your opinion, just like everyone else. But the feeling persists. You are not our overlord.
Or perhaps less shallow.
Well that's the incredible thing about blockchain. Eventually in the future someone will build a tool analyzing all transfers, votes etc. and "fake" transactions will be exposed. similar to cheetah finding duplicates etc.
Well said @stellabelle
thanks, I am annoyed by whales trying to suppress the little people from learning and sharing useful information and data. It's unacceptable actually.
Agreed, well said @stellabelle
Calling this a "witch hunt based on jealousy" is grossly unfair. If the @msgivings case was fraud, let's have some highly visible and whale-powered value judgements made about that, and with similar emotive weight (perhaps this has already happened). No matter how good the system is, how so elegantly tweaked it be, the core value of Steemit is the people, and @ats-david @bacchist et al. are supporting that value.
Thank you. I've been hearing this for weeks when it comes to these sock accounts. I'm starting to realize that the people claiming this don't actually know what a "witch hunt" is. So, perhaps I'll help them:
"the act of unfairly looking for and punishing people who are accused of having opinions that are believed to be dangerous or evil" - Merriam-Webster
This is certainly not a witch hunt. This is a proper investigation into accounts that are defrauding Steemit. The prior accounts that got away with taking many thousands of SBD from the rewards pool - even through copy-paste and other forms of plagiarism - still won't be condemned by these people constantly claiming "witch hunt," "jealousy," and "FUD." This particular user that you're responding to even goes as far as trying to insinuate (on multiple occasions) that I'm here on behalf of a competitor to harm the platform. However, I'm not the one siphoning the many thousands of SBD rewards out of the rewards pool every week.
I think this type of poisoning-the-well and veiled threats of flagging from whales does more damage to the credibility of the platform than I could ever do. The abuses of those with the most influence on this platform does not go unnoticed and, sure, I may be flagged for speaking out, but that's not going to deter me from doing what's right. Some of the people making rather large sums of money off of this platform ought to follow the example of those with the least amount of influence who are doing everything they can to make Steemit successful.
Rather than condemning those who find the flaws and want them corrected, why not use their power to negate the behavior of the bad actors? Not voting for them as witnesses would be a great start. Let's see how many people are willing to do that.
I've already removed my vote for Steemed and Smooth's witness. It took me a long time to see the truth, but it's pretty clear now. My trust in them has been smashed. Smooth has done a lot of work, but I am very upset by him flagging this post. I dislike him thinking that he is some overlord. While I refrain from flagging, he goes ahead and does it to a post that contains data. He will not get my witness vote.
"I think this type of poisoning-the-well and veiled threats of flagging from whales does more damage to the credibility of the platform than I could ever do." And this is why, when I speak to Steemit users who are abandoning the platform, say that they are leaving. These whales are damaging the health of Steemit. They are cutting Steemit by the jugular. Their greed is destroying it. It's quite ironic, isn't it? They threaten us, censor facts, in the name of "not adding value' when they are actively destroying it. Absurd.
I think, that apart from the perps, this @msgivings problems is not being faced for philosophical reasons. I get the impression that a powerful meme in this community is that of the "free market", and this together with the feeling of Steemit's game-changing potential --
-- result in an unwillingness to intervene. However, with the help of Professor Hindsight, I see that one of the pillars of the world view we were lead to (educare) in my British Grammar School was laissez faire, and then this whole concept was largely bullshit: the benign British gentleman with a battleship of tommies ready on the horizon.
The system here is good, but the humans need to stand up and be counted. As you are doing.
That is exactly what you attempting to do.
No one is 'defrauding' steemit. They are using the blockchain as the rules allow. If there were some sort of "exploit" that allowed people to vote multiple times with the same SP, earn rewards in excess of that determined by the programmed formulas, etc., that would be something reasonably described as "defrauding" Steemit. Otherwise, it is 'defrauding' only because you and your accomplices don't like the posts, don't like the rewards they earn, don't like the authors remaining anonymous, believe that you have the right to impose your will over that of the SP holders, and have taken it upon yourselves to declare this as 'defrauding'. There is no other basis for it.
I don't know how else to say it: If you like the posts, vote for them. If you don't like the posts, don't vote for them, or if you feel strongly enough they are bad for the system, then downvote them. The blockchain then impartially determines the outcome. That's what the system does, and as long as no one has discovered an "exploit" such as I described above, your complaints are just disagreement about subjective value being taken to an endless platform of trolling and counter-trolling instead of left to the blockchain to objectively count votes and decide on rewards. I prefer the latter.
If I recall when @msgivings was uncovered as posting plagiarized content, there were whale-powered downvotes applied. I only did not downvote IIRC because the post was already heavily flagged and well below zero when I saw it. Otherwise I would have.
If you like the content, upvote it. If you don't like the content, don't. If you think it is harmful to the community or overrewarded then downvote it. That is what happened with @msgivings and that is what I hope will happen with any future harmful (plagiarized, etc.) content and that is what I'm doing with this post (which districts from evaluating content and attempts to shift focus to individual actors) as well.
The great thing is, that everybody can vote for what-ever they want to. If you don't like don't vote.
While I get that the accounts in question seems to be from one person, I would think that maybe the whale is helping that reporter to format and upload things. (just a unlikely but possible scenario)
So it's interesting to read this and to see how we can see everything on the blockchain but in the long run only quality content will guarantee a piece of the cake.
I am sure that if this really was an attempt of a whale to get higher rewards out of the system, that they will re-think their actions and maybe contribute in a better /different way, which ultimately benefits them the most as the price of the vested Steem might go up in the near future.
I see an issue. This kind of sock puppet account makes getting away with junk like plagiarism much easier. Just blame the sock puppet and start over. The kind of lower quality junk that gets upvoted just because the account is owned by a whale makes SteemIt look bad to the world too. I'd say that's an issue. Why defend this kind of thing?
https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed
But if the whales are using meat puppet accounts to pile onto this is anti-social behaviour that will be the end of steemit. The whales have lost faith in the platform and so there is no point in any of us staying to watch them give the rewards to each other.
Yes. Plagiarism is one thing, but I don't like it when people suggest policing Steemit to deal with things like what @ats-david is pointing out. There has to be a way to increase trust without killing the free market. I wrote my comment before I refreshed the page and saw yours, so it's redundant. ;)
You did make a good point that people have the right to point out what they see happening.
Of course, it's good to take a look at stuff like this to see if it is abusive.
Of course, and no one prevented it. The system is censorship-resistant, and anyone can post whatever they want. Others can vote as they see fit. The system works and is working, but we can still disagree on whether your method of demonizing people and attempting to label using their use of their SP and their votes as they see fit as 'fraudulent' or 'abuse' is a positive and way forward for the community. I don't believe it is.
If it ends up being plagiarism or other form of abuse (as was the case for @msgivings) then by all means, present the evidence of that. Leave build the attempts to build a case on the basis of guilt by association.
Can/will you tell me about the inactive whalestake?
Specifically, is that stake a threat to emerge unannounced?
Will it hang over our heads for years to come?
https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed Only the whales can police the whales. As we can see that they don't care to, it means they no longer care about steemit. If they don't care they will reap whatever rewards they can while they watch it fall.
Interesting point. @throw-away911, is there a solution?
This reminds me of a conversation I just had with someone about politics. The other person was saying that checks and balances are necessary in the world and that countries tend to police each other, and I said that the world's "leaders" are all in cahoots and are draining the rest of us. Lol.
Welp...
Damn. That's what you're saying, isn't it? :/
There is certainly a free market for weeding out bad actors. The critical aspect of this is information and the dissemination of it. I have simply provided that information. It's up to users to decide how to use it in order to "increase trust" on this platform.
Completely agree with @pfunk!