Why Anti-Plagiarism bots are Bullsh..

in #anarchism8 years ago (edited)

Image Source: smyg.wordpress.com


I don't "do" much actual ranting, typically the junk I talk about in my posts are mundane or a reflection piece on some topic I see potentially trending on steemit. Over the very short period of time I've been here I've began to notice this rise of a #BotArmy and I'm going to discus in particular those which attempt... and keep that word in mind as you read this- ATTEMPT to put a damper on plagiarism and why these bots are utter bullshit in my opinion.

Synopsis:

Let's make this short & to the point... shall we.

These bots are going to wind up creating so many problems for posters in the long-run that the end result will be discouragement of engagement with media-based content such as memes and the like which we are now seeing more of in the comments section of our blog posts; which by the way I think is a great thing because it ads that hint of familiarity and makes things amusing.

Here's the thing about plagiarism and the Internet as it stands to date.

It has run rampant but it's also not as big of a problem in the context of social media interactions as it is in the whole pirating scene... people who are posting funny or ridiculous memes, sharing photographs they enjoy and simply linking from one source and displaying it on another such as steemit are not pirates or criminals and over-all are generally not performing malicious acts of plagiarism; at least not in the sense that their actions warrant any kind of down-voting by a disgruntled mob which will be flagging all their stuff.

These bots are going to create factions and I can all but guarantee that the split will be divided up between those who are the self elected sheriffs of this town (and we need absolutely zero of those) and those who simply want a pat on the head for a "job well done" and probably looking for a reward because they dun-did "good".


What is plagiarism & what is curation:

Let me be perfectly clear about this for those who just read the first few sentences of something then make their mind up one way or the other.

I am NOT pro-plagiarism by any means... at all.

But I see it as a pretty big problem when I come into an environment where I would be essentially forced to "prove" my ownership of a piece of intellectual property even if the post from which that content was curated from were benign  in nature. This goes double for posts which feature my own content which may have been pulled from elsewhere... In other words, having to prove it's my shit when it's my shit isn't sitting well with me.

On top of that, the fact that someone is taking it upon themselves to create this group-think that every piece of content shared must somehow pass this seal of approval less they face the wrath of the common group is simply asinine to me. 

Now I get it, I really do. We want to make steemit this clean & pristine environment free from anything "bad" that's going to tarnish it's reputation but what those of you who are creating these bots in the manor of which they are being created do NOT seem to comprehend is that there are already self-governing protocols in place out in the real world to combat such activities and it's not up to you to develop something which will ultimately wind up driving a fork down the middle of steemit and it's users.

Content curation is a legitimate "thing" and the fact anyone has the tenacity to even suggest all articles of media must hold "proven ownership" or rights for fair use is simply not going to work. Not where a collective of ambitious individuals all congregating in one space to share ideas and 'things' with one another.

Plagiarism is basically the act of stealing another's work without prior consent and typically claiming it for your own. 

Curation is also the act of taking someone else's work but not passing it off as your own. It should also typically come with a direct reference back to the copyright holder and only be used in part, not in whole, but we know that doesn't always happen in this way.

The simple fact someone pulls a bunch of images off of a site and shares them in the photography tag doesn't necessarily mean they are assuming ownership for that work.

I get that some people could do a better job of it and maybe that's the idea here with these bots but if that is true then there needs to be a shift in how things are encouraged to be done with regard to flagging. I know that people do receive rewards for their posts here on steemit but they are not exactly getting that in the sense of direct monetary compensation. Even if it were later to be determined that those who post curated content are receiving direct compensation- that is for the courts to decide, not some bot developed by someone with good intentions. I think this is a very big gray-line which needs to be thinned out and I'm definitely not the guy to do it, but this post I'm writing right now is meant to perhaps spark some ideas or at least a dialog for the flow and exchange of ideas and opinion on the subject. 


Here's my point:

Sharing other's content in the way it's typically done in a social media environment, though not exactly "legal" is not necessarily looked upon as direct plagiarism but instead seen in part as content curation. 

There have been numerous copyright claims made over the years and a bunch of court rulings have been made in favor for content curation when done properly. 

The idea behind "fair use" stems from pretty much what is going on here, right now, with steemit. People sharing other people's stuff and getting recognition for that work which they do not own yet not directly just ripping somebody off in an attempt to "get away with something."

There are fair use guidelines which I've spoken about in another blog post of mine, if you're curious about it go check it out... Right here

In that post I talk about the "right way" to curate content, mention the legalities surrounding fair use and even make mention of a court case which backs up fair use when done right.


This is where steemit blog posts come into play... not so much all those funny comments which feature gif images of amusing memes.

If someone curates content and does it RIGHT it is not the place of some BOT or it's creator to cite a mob of flaggers which could not only tarnish that poster's reputation unjustly but also start a domino effect thus crippling the reputation of the platform over all. 

Let's keep this 100% real... there is only so much original mumbo-jumbo any one place can harvest from it's user-base before the platform is overrun with so man "who-cares" posts that nobody wants to even bother paying it any attention, curated content is necessary to keep any social site running. Steemit is in it's infancy which means things are still being figured out (including these bots) but when self policing reaches a point that anyone can diminish anyone else's reputation and experience based on a whim or misunderstanding then we have a major problem on our hands... these plagiarism checking bots are going to potentially start planting seeds in the minds of steemit users which do not belong there.

I get that you've developed this fancy bot and you're proud of it and that your intentions are good but you can not put something in place which will cripple the environment in such a way that everyone has to feel like all they can post is original content, that's nonsense. 

Those sharing memes, photographs which have been curated from other sources, and even their own original material which they've pulled off somewhere else are not pirates, they are not plagiarist and I have to be honest... something specific I read just before I went on this rant which spoke of people having to prove their own content is their own really ticked me off. I suppose I'll stand alone on this subject but if so I'm ok with that because it will be interesting to see what comes of these bots and the people who have to endure them.

-Done

#jayjustmay

Sort:  

Something came to mind so I'm just going to make a comment instead of editing my post...

It seems these bots are coming about as a means to bring a product to market, in a manor of speaking. There seems to be this demand so those who are able to are developing tools which could wind up crippling some major aspects of what a social site is meant to be... sharing.

I can't fault these developers for 'pandering' to the market by making these bots and no doubt hoping to be rewarded by either notoriety an/or monetarily; but some of them are seriously killing the point of decentralization and non-censorship. Self censoring tools are needed, blocking tools and the like, but I don't see those being made (yet) which is funny because I do instead see tools made to censor other's. It's almost like we as people are stuck in this mental-thought trap we can't escape... another issue I wrote about. I just keep thinking about all this stuff and it seems to be coming to fruition in one way or another, it's nice to see others agree in some way... and I'm totally open to counter arguments, anything which can expand my mind is a good thing.

Excellent points. The hall monitors are forming brigades, and it's only going to get worse unless something proactive is done.

There need to be features implemented that both let the users control what they see and allows massive ethical sharing of content by embedding it (just like the rest of social media is doing).

These are my proposals to help fix the problem before the censorship bots and brigades gain too much power to control.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@tinfoilfedora/instead-of-creating-automated-censorship-tools-allow-the-users-to-fix-the-problem-through-curation

https://steemit.com/steemit-ideas/@tinfoilfedora/a-solution-to-copied-content-that-would-make-steemit-explode-with-cool-posts

I like that you called them "hall monitors" that's clever lol.
I'm going to have a look at the links you posted, this is a very touchy and interesting topic for me... thanks for sharing and taking the time out to comment. I do appreciate that.

Thanks for speaking up, too many people are just letting this stuff slowly creep in without a fight.
PC brigades and censorship is why decentralized networks were created, I am stunned they are being allowed in this quickly.

I saw a comment on another post where someone said something to the effect of "I'm too scared to down vote (something-something) I honestly forgot what they were afraid to down vote... but the bottom line was fear of penalty to their reputation and monetization rewards. This is a problem because through the assumption of being dinged for stating your true opinion most people will not do what they are supposed to do and that is share how they really feel. They're going to just follow the flow and try to collect that steem. I made a post a while back about how there needs to be a fundamental shift in the mentality of people for this decentralized platform with rewards to work or it's going to collapse.

I think ultimately it will take human involvement to fully control plagiarism. Some aspects of checking for it could be automated, but in the end it really should be a human being making a decision. I think that this site should have clear policies about what kind of sharing of other people's stuff is allowed and how it's to be done.

I know, for example, that YouTube videos register views regardless of where the viewer watched the video (directly on YouTube or embedded on someone's blog). For something like this, then embedding another's video ends up benefiting both parties. The one who uploaded the YouTube video gets views, and the blogger gets a cool video to share.

Where it gets more dicey is when it's someone's image and the way to share it on Steemit is to first download the image to your own system, then upload it to a server such as SteemIMG, and then share it. In that process you lose the built-in link to the original material and so therefore there needs to be proper attribution.

But the dilemma doesn't stop there. What if I posted a photograph on my blog (in my pre-steemit days), and someone here took the picture and shared it here and made a boatload of money off doing so. Maybe they attributed it properly to me and put in a link to my blog. Maybe that got me some traffic. But is it still fair? Later on I join the Steemit party and I try to share that same picture but all the people who would upvote it are like "already seen it" and so I can't make money here off my own work because someone else shared it first. That may not be illegal and may not be plagiarism, but is it right? That's where I think it is prudent to err on the side of caution here. I have no problem with sticking to original content because writing is what I do. I can also take my own pictures if a picture is all I want to share. If I'm going to use an open source picture, then I still wouldn't just share the picture; I'd use it to enhance my own work (my writing) so that if I benefit monetarily from it, it's not just me benefiting from someone else's picture, but benefiting from my own work which happened to use that picture.

I guess my point is that when you start getting paid to share content, and what you're sharing is not yours but you're not doing anything that people on Facebook and Twitter don't do, you have to consider the issue of lost potential earnings for the original creator before you go off and just post their stuff and get tons of Steem because your post was heavily upvoted on this platform.

"Maybe that got me some traffic. But is it still fair? "
"That may not be illegal and may not be plagiarism, but is it right?"

In my opinion, yes... it's both fair & right and here's why.

As it stands right now in the legal system, content curation and fair use pretty much go hand in hand when done in accordance to the 4 mail pillars of "fair use" under intellectual property law.
This means that if the material is used the right way, regardless of what monetary rewards are acquired by the curator then there is no wrong being done. But the spirit of your point is made and I do understand it and I do agree with it to some degree but at the same time I do believe that using someone's content under the proper means is a benefit to both the curator and the original publisher.

I used to make video games for a living and I've had a few of my games stolen and pirated all over the internet, I know how it feels to not get your just rewards for all that hard work. But that being said, it comes with the territory and I know and accept that. That is my own point of view, I don't expect anybody else to share it, but bottom line is that we can't control ever aspect of what happens with the stuff we create and put out to the world.

So I guess to sum up this long response, though I agree with what you've said I stand by my own ideas as well and I do believe something should be set in place to give proper attribution to the source material of shared content here on steemit. The question then becomes how to do that... and I don't have the answer to it.

Yup - I am with you - the only real solution I see is a decentralised asset platform with a similar contractual agreement which the creator can set the price of assets, then the producer can agree to the deal and use the asset, and both parties get the benefit. This platform would have to have the following features.

  1. Images, GIFs & Videos
    All hosted content is on a decentralised database.
  2. Rewards
    The system would need to pay the creation, storing and distribution of data on a dynamic basis. Perhaps a simple Bid/Ask system, I say simple, but need to be very sophisticated.
  3. Raw data
    Anyone can agree to the contracts on any platform.

Just my 2c.

I think this is a very interesting idea, even more so if it was all tied into with the steemit wallet in some way. I'm not sure if you meant this in your initial reply or not but you just sparked an idea in my head and now it's only a matter of time to see if anyone who can do something about it... does.

thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate your input.

Even the best bots will always make mistakes and here a flag on a newly created thread is basically a death sentence for it. Better to try to get rid of all bots. There are already way too many spam bots.

I think you're absolutely right. Though the goal of my post isn't to start some lynch mob on bots, I do think that bots are a tricky thing and can be very dangerous because they would be nearly impossible to perfect or even get right to the point they don't accidentally cause harm to innocent posts and bloggers from time to time and all it takes is a few incidents to really get a chain reaction going.