Okay, so your business model is to get paid to identify plagiarism, for example. As far as you discover an original text outside of Hive, i.e. on the web, with a release on Hive as being the same, you are acting. The question is, however, whether your action does not also involve an abuse of the reward pool, since you do not really seem to be interested in clarifying the facts, as this case illustrates well.
If you classify something as plagiarism and consider the original content publisher to have been cheated, then your course of action should be: You contact the presumed originator and point out to him that a publication on Hive seems to match his content from him, ask whether it is his content and whether the release on Hive is wanted or not wanted. You have to wait for the answer.
The fact that in this case - and in all others? - seems to be derived from your business model, since you only seem to act within the Hive sphere.
In fact, this would also be very time-consuming and you could not assume that you would be rewarded for contacting a presumed victim.
So, in principle, it can be assumed that your interest in stopping plagiarism incidents is reduced to this sphere, that you have nothing to do with original authors outside of Hive, and that you are therefore relying on a model that enables you to act as Hive police who are both judge and enforcer.
Personally, I have nothing against setting up a business model that detects plagiarism, it is up to everyone whether they support what you are doing.
But I think it's excessive and self-righteous to act ideologically like so:
Self-appointed, fake, wannabe "investigative journalists" who exploit the Hive ecosystem to perpetuate lies and dangerous disinformation such as qAnon, flat earth propaganda, NWO reptilian Illuminati, anti vaxxing, plandemic/5G, climate change denial, far-right extremism, homophobia, racism, etc.
Since you presumably use automatic mechanisms to do the work of finding plagiarism for you, you could be accused, as you accuse others, of making your cut with the help of modern technology. Just because you enrich it with questionable ideological speech and make a little more work for yourselves than those who dispense with interaction altogether does not make you better or good people.
I still appreciate that you show your intentions and do not hide them. This makes it transparent for the reader to decide whether to support you or not.
"Since you presumably use automatic mechanisms to do the work of finding plagiarism for you, you could be accused, as you accuse others, of making your cut with the help of modern technology. Just because you enrich it with questionable ideological speech and make a little more work for yourselves than those who dispense with interaction altogether does not make you better or good people."
Please, stop repeating this lie over and over again.
You know very well that all our work is done manually.
There is no efficient automatic tool to find most of the plagiarism-scam.
Cheetah (when we were still able to afford it) was only detecting basic plagiarism in English.
Sure, if you know such an effective automatic tool, then you are welcome to tell us. We would more than happy to use it.
Just don't bring examples of these useless online plagiarism tools that are out there.
P.S. ignoring my other considerations shows that you looked only for the weak point in my response, which it was, I admit.
I don't know you at all. I just checked your recent posts before I commented on you.
You are telling me, all is manually? Fine. I assumed something else. It's a difference between assuming something and telling a blunt lie.
I accuse you of being a criminal!
How bout that?
I agree with you.