You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Case 6: busting @annart's Ukrainian fake artist ring
You can ask the real Elena on Facebook, she has them!
I have not received them from her directly but through a middleman, she herself did say this:
but you see, i really feel sorry for her, she just tried to earn some money and somehow survive in this life. I just want to block fake account @elena2017, that's all.
I am honoring this.
I found more accounts sending funds to the same Bittrex accounts:
@TatyanaSV
@unlovedgirl
I also came across another account which has already been flagged down: @uneducated @svetlanaart
yes, and there's a bunch more.
take a look at this: https://steemit.com/art/@katrinart/hello-steemit-have-a-great-weekend#@predator/re-annart-re-stellabelle-re-katrinart-hello-steemit-have-a-great-weekend-20170804t124949648z
Oh wow. This person is pretty hardcore at scamming.
I just checked that link and got. "This post was hidden due to low ratings."
yes, because it has already been downvoted, there's a button that let's you reveal the content, though!
We can't do much though. All we can do is flag the account and posts down - but the account will keep on existing on the platform. :l
yes, unfortunately so, as the account @nataliadobrick shows very well.
no, once @cheetah has them on it's blacklist, they will be doomed.
Yes ofcourse, but literally blocking it isn't possible is all I am saying :)
Once an account reputation is destroyed, then the account basically ceases to exist. There have been people who are reformed, so it is possible......Steemit uses reputation and community involvement to bring social change. Banning is done by centralized corps. We use the community to bring about punishment
Steemit, I am told, does have centralized means of actually blocking accounts. I am told by a party (who I will not name, as I have no confidence in them whatsoever, due to their acts) that Steemit has blocked them from an account.
I have no more information than this, but I do believe that websites aren't able to be rendered immune from such controls. It is simply the nature of code that, on a site served from servers under the control of Stinc, the users of that site can be censored.
This is the only instance I have heard of it being done. I also cannot certify that it happened, clearly, as I do not have access to the server logs.
However, I can see no impediment to it being done, particularly in cases which create a threat to Steemit itself.
Generally, I believe that Stinc does not do this, and you are correct that the community itself is self-correcting. That does not make it impossible that censoring is both possible, and has been undertaken, at least once., by Stinc.
So then it's a matter of their word and lack of proof for this...
It cannot.
There's no incentive to giving the world proof of censorship. Hard Coding, ip blocking, wouldn't stop someone determined from bypassing hard coded front-end censor and demonstrating it if it was true, or anyone from documenting Ip blocking, or hard coded changes in the open source code. Demonstrating it in this case would be immensely incentivized, just imagine having proof of censorship on steemit, and there is no reason to think otherwise.
There's no incentive and people that are determined will expose censorship, people that get censored won't take it lightly if it happens where and when it's promised otherwise.
This is why when someone cries "CENSORSHIP" or outright lies and says they've been censored, it's important to dispel that nonsense and cut the root of that, what's the proof, can you demonstrate it?
It's easy to rag on the development or large accounts, and not saying you're doing that, just remarking on what most "censorship, censorship everywhere" is or amounts to, but I'm grateful that this isn't run by admins, OF ANY KIND, even those that are admins at the INC, or in the github or the chat, hardly are admins on the chain where everyone has the same rights and is free.
All too true. As I said, I have limited information.
However, there are potential situations where an account compromising the integrity of the platform, for example, that might provide nominal cause to censor.
Given what I know about Steemit, I cannot conceive of a means of making an account impervious to various mechanisms that can prevent use of the account. Not only the frontend is necessary to login and post, as the blockchain requires accounts to possess adequate SP to transact.
I have myself shown others that censorship of posts did not occur on Steemit, but that does not mean I don't think accounts can't be prevented from posting at all.
I, considering the source, expected that, if censorship, in the form of preventing an account from being accessed, had actually occurred, first, it was likely justified, and second, was also singular. Further, as I am not expecting Stinc to acquiesce in it's own destruction, and to allow accounts to be used to attack the platform itself, I could see no reason to object. Last, neither did I have confidence in the report.
For these reasons, and my own general ignorance (by choice) of coding, I failed to demand rigorous proof, or give it more consideration.
It could well have not happened, and I mention it only as a caution to not expect inviolability. I don't think it's possible to preclude the potential to censor on a website. Steemit has various mechanisms that potentiate control of the ability of accounts to operate, and, if there is nominal cause, I expect that those mechanisms will be employed - even if it takes a Hard Fork to do it.
The point I was making is that example is self defeating. If SteemInc censors someone they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Especially if its some account that can compromise the integrity of the platform, I expect such a person to be determined and moved even more by the free proof of steeminc being worthy of liquidation.
The point being is that they have no choice in such matters, if such an account is so determined, the it has to happen in a Transparent, Open Source environment. Even then, I have no reason to believe that the development and witnesses coming together would lead to account banning, or ip or any other kind of censorship, hard-fork or not. I think the solution will present itself, I think we give too much importance to what a singular or determined individual can accomplish and not the monumental behemoth that the community is.
She could have been honest and present the work of this artist. You can't go around trying to impersonate people. From what it looks like she paid more than what her post generated.
Yeah I know - that's why I find it so weird that she did another post about it.
Thats what I always think... But it isnt fair either to the many folk on here who struggle with English as a second language but remain honest.