to negate abuse
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.