Hi. Thanks for the comment 🙂 When they use someone else's work, they can simply mention that the content is not theirs. If they don't mention, they automatically claim the authorship of the content and deceive readers into thinking that they the are the authors. If plagiarised content is not tractable to the original is irrelevant. Poetry, articles, memes, tales, photography, art, jokes, etc. Memes are not any sort of exclusive and extraordinary content to get a jail free card. Hivewatchers have been explaining why it's abuse since it was created in 2016. If some content isn't traceable to the original author is irrelevant. It doesn't take any effort to simply mention the source from where the content was copied and pasted from to point out honestly that they aren't the authors. Rewards weren't declined, source of copying was not mentioned/non authorship wasn't mentioned so the content was deception towards readers and abusive activity to gain monetary and/or social reward. Also, even if the source of copypasta was mentioned but there's no significant personal thought added to sourced-shared content, it could be considered as no effort copypasta spam to fish for rewards (unless rewards declined).
I personally often use other's content when create a collage on social media including using memes. If I can't trace original source, I simply write in sourcing "Original Source of meme: unknown". In this way, my readers know that I didn't create it and I'm honest about all content used and clear about what was of my creation in collage.
Because you are the only one on the Internet doing it doesnt mean is good for the other 99%. Check any social media and show me at least 50% of cases ppl share of a meme the source.
Most people on Hive disagree with it. A poll at least, would be good ( so the rules can be voted on).
I promise you "no fun and random rules" will kill this Blockchain. And you take a big part into this.
Rules should be same to other social Media platforms (Otherwise, why use Hive? COme one, give me the sell point of Hive).
If i buy tomorrow for 5 BTC 5 Million hive, i am not allowed to vote for memes? So you are above every stakeholder?
Your rules above anyone on the chain?
You also dont see your power is a attac vector? Everyone can buy for 1 BTC hive now and copy your work ( For a attack, it would be enough to downvote all new users on autopilot).
Or if someone hates Christians or muslims, do the same for them. It shows that the downvote mechanism looks good on paper but is also something that will never let the chain scale.
Just because there's pervading content theft that's allowed to be rampant on social media, doesn't mean that it should be ignored.
Thats why i said you bully off Users. Exactly this.
having a token everyone ones and some Abuse and a lot of users is 100000 times better as a token Nobody wants and is worthless.
users are the value.
No users, No value. And Users come and stay where they have fun. Hive is in competition with the Internet.
PPl can decide where they go and they are not all underwater bagholders.
Fair enough, and exactly responsive to my query. A bit of common sense would seem nominal to extricate anyone with good faith from the problem. However, I personally have observed users being perennially DV'd on content that doesn't run afoul of that standard, and while I cannot state HW alone is responsible, the relationships between spaminator, Marky, and a variety of others I note practice that behaviour are opaque and cannot be confidently ascribed to any particular source, nor exclude any. As I am addressing you, I can only address things I have observed you to do.
Do you DV creators and accounts on content that does not feature such lapses in attribution just because they once did fail to do so? Do you limit application of DV's to content that is failing to properly attribute non-original work and personally editorializing or otherwise contributing original work, as you outlined above?
Every user has their own view of what should or should not be abusive. HW's scope is clear and generally applied equally to each case. Of course, I take into account many different factors for blacklisting of downvoting, such as whether the user is new, intentionality, frequency of abuse, etc.
I do not blacklist new users. Neither do I downvote their new posts with abuse. New accounts that are downvoted are those that were evidently created as made-to-abuse.
If I see a new user who posted some AI spam or plagiarism, I would prefer to drop a general comment with guidelines, not specifying exactly what the abuse is. That's a different approach that I had in the past.
I am glad to see your considerations have evolved over time. It is difficult for users to grasp the need to provide original editorial content with material from other creators to qualify for rewards, as well as attribution for memes in particular. No other platform has such requirements for memes that I have seen, and they are simply reposted freely without sourcing.
There's no momentary reward system for posting anything and system of curation. On other platforms.
That isn't factually correct, as every social media platform has some curative mechanism, even if only censoring opinions they don't like, and means of rewarding at least some content. However it isn't responsive to my point, which is that memes are a different form of content are uniquely not attributable by common usage.
I do not assert that enables posters to claim they created memes they repost, nor fail to specifically point out someone else created them, nor be relieved of the obligation to actually provide OC.
I do assert that those are the necessary requirements to be considered OC and monetized on Hive.
I am more concerned today with the delegation for upvotes schemes and curation schemes that wholly exclude authors (HBDfunder comments, for example), that between them comprise ~60 - 80% of rewards paid out today, and the recently stated intention to improve AI bots on Hive, which is an existential threat to the platform. Replacing human society with bots is clearly contradictory to the purpose of Hive for anyone except those with the compute to run bots that can capture more rewards from the pool than people, and will, if allowed, eventually capture all of them.
I expect your remit to include these far more substantial threats to Hive, particularly more harmful than meme posters. They're also more difficult and problematic to suppress. You need some kind of oracle to establish a particular account represents an unique human being, so socks and botnets don't completely eradicate Hive's purpose as social media and utility to human beings as anything but a token source they have automated means of mining.
That is, if you have the purpose of preventing harm to the platform from scams that wrongfully extract rewards. Is that how you define your remit and the purpose for which you are paid?
"content are uniquely not attributable by common usage"
It doesn't matter. Like I already explained. Not the author? Then state it.
A simple ask, easy for honest people.