Nowadays there is no "the Blacklist". Every hive account can create its own blacklist (which is publicly accessible information on the blockchain). And the "meaning" of that blacklist is strictly up to the hive account itself to define (if it even chooses to do so).
Users and specific frontends can read any of these blacklists, and use or ignore the data as they see fit. Hivewatchers operates one of the most well-known such blacklist and while I'm not familiar with the details, I do believe that some users operate bots that follow some of the blacklists created by hivewatchers.
Ultimately, all blacklists serve as some sort of opinion about the accounts on that particular blacklist. For example, you could create a blacklist for people you believe are spammers.
However, I think @apshamilton is trying to build a "bridge too far" by equating the putting of an account on a blacklist as legal defamation.
Just to begin with, defamation requires a false statement of fact. Putting someone on a blacklist is, generally speaking, not making a statement of fact about an account. For example, say someone created a list of accounts that they suspect of plagiarism. That doesn't mean they are outright accusing them of plagiarism, it just indicates that they suspect them of it. This breaks the first required element of defamation: "To be considered defamatory, the statement must concern a matter of fact, not simply an opinion."
What I am talking about is Hivewatchers posting a comment that wrongfully says something is plagiarised, when it is not. This happens. This is a wrongful statement of fact and may be defamatory.
I never even mentioned blacklists and I have made it clear that what I am talking about is when Hivewatchers gets it wrong (not when it gets it right).
@guiltyparties you continue to miss the point of what I am saying and keep attacking straw men.
What I am pointing out is that every time Hivewatchers gets it wrong and posts a comment saying something is plagiarised then it exposes itself to legal liability.
Although for completeness, in some jurisdictions (eg Israel & NSW before recent reforms) a statement can be defamatory even if it correct. In these jurisdictions one must prove truth AND public interest to sustain the defence.
I took a look just now at one of the hivewatcher comments. There is no direct statement that the post being commented on is plagiarism or that the poster is a plagiarist. It only contains a link to an external site that says "Source of plagiarism". Then it has a generic warning about plagiarism that also makes no direct comment about the poster or the post. I think it would be quite difficult to mount a legal case based on it. But it is possible the wording can be further improved.
I don't think public interest would be difficult to show in the case of plagiarism, where you have a blockchain that rewards people for their posts. There is a clear public interest to the Hive community in this case in exposing potential fraud.
If Hivewatchers is wrong and the content actually belongs to the individual we edit the comment and otherwise clarify. This is very, very rare and always amicably resolved.
My point to you is people are looking to you for legal advice. They believe you to be an authority. When you tell them something, they believe you. You are telling them that all finds of suspected plagiarism are false accusations and illegal. And now, with the latest trend of outrage, that downvotes are illegal. This is how normal people interpret this. It is clearly false.
In this case, you gave said advice without even checking that the information is correct. The OP did his best with the post with good intentions but much of it is incorrect. Whereas anyone else responded I wouldn't have said anything. But you're responding as an authority on the matter to incorrect information and in a highly non-objective way.
I never said anything of the sort!
The way you are continually twisting my very clear words into something completely different from what I said is most concerning.
@blocktrades I'd ask you to have a look at the way @wil.metcalfe was treated over paid translation of his posts into 3 other languages (see his detailed comment below).
Can you really justify this behaviour?
This sort of thing is happening all the time and pushing good content producers off Hive. It undermines all the good work you do on the backend.
Why are you supporting the Hivewatchers DHF proposal with your vote when they refuse to change their ways.
Their approach to what constitutes plagiarism is far too broad, their "guilty until proven innocent" by appeal on Discord is offensive and unfair, they lack transparency.
I am not suggesting we get rid of Hivewatchers altogether, but it is clearly in need of reform.
I don't really follow hivewatchers' work much, nor most of the other social media disputes that arise among various users on the chain. If I spent my time on such things, I don't think I would get much else done, because there is always ongoing conflicts between Hive users (this is normal for every form of social media, from what I can tell).
I have a lot of Hive work to do already that it would be difficult for others to do, so I don't see any good reason why I should be the particular person to arbitrate voting disputes just because I'm trying to improve the platform itself. For the most part, I think community members need to work out their issues amongst themselves.
At the end of the day, anyone can run a Hivewatchers type account. It is true it has some DHF funding now, but it operated before that, so it seems obvious that the DHF funding isn't necessary to its existence. I've voted for the DHF proposal just because I think it can provide a useful service and I expect that some funding can improve how it performs.
But if you believe you can make improvements to how Hivewatchers works, then there's a couple of options: 1) engage with Hivewatchers and see if you can get them to accept some of your proposed changes or 2) consider providing a better alternative service and compete with them directly.
I'm not expecting you to arbitrate voting disputes.
I also have many better things to do with my time. :-)
However I've been trying to engage Hivewatchers to reform both privately and publicly for over a year.
The problems keep re-occurring and I see good people leaving Hive because of it.
"Good content producers" includes accounts engaged in identity theft and a whole lot of other malicious crap. Account who keep claiming they should be treated better than others because they are superior in nature. The same "good content producers" who take fellow-content creators' work and post it as their own, who defraud curators and readers, who only see Hive as free money. (Wil is not included in this statement.)
The reason we use Discord is because it's a public chat venue. We do not process anything behind closed doors or privately. We do not allow proxy appeals as those commonly lead to threats for the unfortunate victim who was selected as proxy. We do not allow virtually anything that can be seen as favoritism. Nothing about the message on Discord, which is basically detailed instructions to let the community know why they are appealing, is unfair. The instructions are detailed to help people. This is the only service that even has an appeal mechanism built into the process. Imagine if it didn't. Everyone is equal. And it's this very equality that's a problem for those "good content creators".
In regards to reform, Hivewatchers has a constant cyclical feedback policy. We adjust the scope and process constantly to fit the evolution of Hive. There is even an anonymous feedback form. Everyone is encouraged to provide feedback in whatever way they choose and I do read and take it all into account. The only feedback I will never, ever incorporate is to treat some different than others because like I said, everyone is equal.
First off, thanks for the comment. It must have taken a while to write?
Sadly, I have to disagree. I believe any lawyer could successfully demonstrate that by placing a name on a 'List' designed to group individuals together, either proven or accused of, let's say being plagiarists, for example, is a classic case of "Tarring everyone with the same brush" Let's imagine for a minute that it was a list of paedophiles. I suspect people would take that a bit more seriously than "Oh, it's just a list on a social media platform that most of the web hasn't even heard about." I would also point out that on the Hive Watchers Discord server in the #appeals channel, nearly all the cases I saw in the six months I spent on there people were told quite openly and in no uncertain terms what they were: "YOU'RE A PLAGIARIST! YOUR BAN IS PERMANENT!" I should also be clear and say I did see a portion of people in effect clear their name or at the very least accept their mistake and pledge to rehabilitate their behaviour.
Rather than going round and round in circles, I suspect we're going to agree to disagree on this one? Personally, I'm not overly bothered. My account is only tiny; I've never bought Hive with fiat, and I just don't have the time to spend all day every day on Hive, just the odd periods here and there. Having said that, I suppose if I had been buying Hive with hard currency and invested thousands in the platform, as I know a good few have, I guess I would have a different opinion?
Enjoy