"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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"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.