This is why I disagree with the flagging system, and why it should only be used to negate abuse, not to simply disagree with something. That's just dumb.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is why I disagree with the flagging system, and why it should only be used to negate abuse, not to simply disagree with something. That's just dumb.
interesting theory. Now, define abuse.
I personally do not agree with @smooth's assesment of this content, but if we take it as a given that this content takes an amount of money inconsistent with its value from the reward pool, then it is, in fact, abuse. no other meaningful definition is possible without creating a "steem tos".
Even things like plagarism and spam are only "abuse" because people started downvoting them at one point.
Abuse is anything that literally, not figuratively, devalues the platform. Plagiarism and spam are such. Copyright for instance, is a legal grey area which puts the platform and its users at risk. I think those types of abuse are worthy of being flagged. The same with content regarding physical abuse or malevolence against innocents.
I disagree. why should your opinion be any more valuable than mine? Copyright infringement, like all forms of abuse, is only abuse per quod.
For example, in late july one poster had this to say about whether copyright infringement is abuse and should be downvoted:
The problem is that the term "abuse" deceptively implies the existence of a set of objective standards. Normally, on platforms different from steem those objective standard are based upon compliance or noncompliance with the site TOS, but there is no TOS here. We make the rules by upvoting content we think is paid less than its value warrants and downvoting content that we think is paid more than its value warrants. We make our own rules and to do that, users need both an upvote and a downvote.
On a site like facebook or twitter a flag means that you broke an objective set of site policies about what content is acceptable. A downvote on steem can never mean that.
^^THIS is an excellent comment IMHO
And, the value of said content is relative to whatever a person values it as. If they vote on it and decide it's worth their entire weight in the reward pool, then so be it. The same goes for someone like @smooth that believes it's worth less, however as I said, I just feel like negating someone else's rewards because you disagree with the content's value, is somewhat violent in nature; passive aggression. Myself for example, when I dislike content I ignore it. Doesn't bother me if someone gets rewarded heavily from a large stake holder. I'm not giving them my vote, and that's what counts to me, my individual vote. I shouldn't be concerned with another persons vote.
It's a mundane argument. Value is subjective, and trying to dictate that value is malevolent, like a dictator.
Those downvoting are not "dictating" value any more (or less) than those upvoting are.
The only possible "abuse" is the one that goes against rules laid out by the platform. As the guidelines for flagging were changed, I recognize no abuse at the moment.
This is not to suggest there can't still be "harmful" behaviours, even if it isn't objectively "abuse" according to platform TOS.
there are no rules laid out by the platform. Steemit is not steem.
I think you agree? The combination of Steem and Steemit was what I labeled the platform in this case. There were rules for flagging on Steemit, but they have now been widened to include any possible reason and since they are not called rules... there are no longer any rules and the "flag" can hardly be called a flag anymore. - It is once again a downvote.
What should happen now, is that we remove the "flag" icon and replace it with a "downvote" button, "thumbs down" or similar.
I can't reply to your last comment, so I'll respond here.
Sorry to paraphrase. But that is exactly what I mean by subjective, you say so yourself, and as such you're taking it upon your self to speak for the whole. Who gives any one person the right to speak for every one? Beside that, who's to say that wont bring many people to Steemit?
These attitudes, where we think we know what's best, is off-putting. Seeing people dictate what is valuable and what isn't, oppresses people from expressing their own unique and individual opinions, especially when they have to fear getting downvoted just because someone disagrees with how much some one else's opinion is worth. I fucking hate green day, but I'm not going to downvote you because I think it's lame and would've probably bullied you in high school for listening to them. Instead I'll ignore that you like green day, the people who do like green day will like your post about green day, you'll get that one reward for posting about green day, and we'll move on.
Sorry if I sound like a rude prick, but I really dislike it when someone suggests something is best for everyone. Perhaps I should downvote yours and Smooth's comments because I disagree with them and think the opinions you're expressing devlue our community? Of course I wouldn't, because that would show aggression, passive aggression that devalues the community. See what I'm getting at?
I agree with that perspective, however I disagree with your belief that constitutes aggression. It is simply voicing your opinion on what type of content you want to see here. Others doing the same in aggregate form what "the platform" collectively encourages or discourages.
I agree with that, but how can you avoid flags being used for simple disagreement when anyone can flag? There are many people who are simply slaves to their emotions and react without thinking.
If there were a way that flags were only used to combat abuse it would be better, but the problem with that is a) what constitutes abuse and b) who is allowed to define that or have the power to flag?
The problem is that most people aren't self aware enough to realize when their emotions are in the way of their rationality. I know, it happens to me sometimes.
Good points. You can't really define abuse, so I guess what I'm trying to say is that there needs to be a medium. We should be able to disagree with content, without the need to come off aggressive when disagreeing. A simple dislike button would cure this flagging disease we see spreading through the ranks.
There was another very well written and rather detailed post concerning the need for a way to cast negative feedback on articles (and comments if I'm not mistaken). I don't recall if it was @dantheman or someone else off the top of my head but it influenced my thinking favorably. It made a strong case for balanced feedback.
Probably @bitcoindoom
The people who designed, developed, and develop this system disagree with you. They have now expressed that by incorporating "disagreement over rewards" into the flag dialog.
It is a gray area, but I do believe that the voting on these posts is essentially a form of abuse. Much of the voting power has decided to vote on these long form posts in order to generate curation rewards (including to use in funding voting guild businesses) because there is an expectation that "quality" and the reputation of the author is a free ride when it comes to the risk of being downvoted. They are incorrect.
But value is subjective; if someone likes something, they're going to like it as a token of their appreciation. Disliking something, I guess, is the same. I just feel that showing your disapproval through negating said tokens is a violent act. Not intentionally violent, but indeed violent in nature, as you're suppressing someone else's subjective appreciation.
You are right though, and it does fly both ways, I just feel there should be a medium for people to show that they disapprove of something, as such a dislike button. It would improve metrics, transparency, and overall consensus.
Its a good point about metrics.... the rest of it, the way to indicate that you don't like something without effecting rewards is to post a comment saying "this is fucking stupid"
No one is negating, we're all just expressing views. As I asked in another reply, if I downvote and then someone upvotes after me, are they negating my downvote (or my opinion)? I don't think so.
Perhaps it would help to understand (if you don't already; I'm not sure) that upvotes and downvotes/flags are equal and opposite. If two people with the same SP vote on a post, one up and one down, the effect is to not change the reward at all. We're all entitled to our views on what is the best approach to use our own vote power.
I agree that the flag icon is bad and misleading. I'd love to see it put back to having symmetric up and downvote buttons, since that's how the system actually works.
I understand, I just feel, that there should be a downvote button that doesn't negate rewards, and is simply there to show people that their content isn't valued the same by every one. Although upvotes/flags are equal to one and other, they're not seen in the same respect. One is negative and one is positive. Any negative act you take upon someone, even out of kindness, can be considered violent. When you're negating someone's rewards, then it's evidently violent.
Not to sound condescending, but do you understand how people powerless to tip the scales, might feel in that situation?
Putting so much emphazis on "feeling" as if though it was a thought, in general makes me less inclined to read comments. However I do see what you mean by doesn't "negate" and perhaps that could be one use of the downvote. On the other hand, I might suggest it should be the other way around.
Maybe the downvote should adjust payout as is done today, but the flag should have no monetary value attached to it.
That way, payments could be adjusted with regular votes and the flag could be kept as a separate mechanism (just to show if someone thought it was simple spam/harrasment) as there would not be the same incentive to flag simply in order to bring down the payments of others.
"It is a gray area, but I do believe that the voting on these posts is essentially a form of abuse."
This is where I have to disagree. Unless the platform says it's abuse, it is not. You may find it harmful to the platform or it's users, but that's still not to say it should be labeled "abuse".
"The platform" says it is "abuse" when the stakeholders do, and only then. There is no central authority defining these rules.
Anyway, I don't think the label is that important.
Well, I separated the terms "platform" and "users" to narrow it down to the combination of the data made visible from the blockchain and on the most promoted user interface/website.
I don't consider myself, users in general or any stakeholder for that matter, to be a rigid part of that particular "platform".
Also, I used the word "says" in the same way as "the book cover say x". Not to suggest that anyone in particular was actually saying it anew right now.
I think that the labeling is actually more important than it may seem at first.
For example, it would seem here that if I voted for this post you would consider my behaviour abuse of the "platform" (your previously used definition). This would be even though I make hardly anything from it and am not associated with any guild or other form of organized voting. Just for thinking that this is good content and you seeing it as bad content, you would have termed this abuse, no?
I may dislike the content and consider it a "poor" use, but I wouldn't consider it "abuse" unless it actually directly and clearly violated a stated current goal of the developers of the platform (my definition).
Maybe you don't mean the same thing when you use a word such as "abuse" and this could be the cause of a lot of confusion.
Good feedback. I do strive to minimize confusion. Thanks.