The problem
One of the most controversial features of the Steemit system is the ability to flag a post. As the devs and many others have emphasised, flagging a post is not something to be done lightly, but only if the post is offensive, spam, plagiarised, or in any other way contradictory to the ethical code of Steemit. Of course, that code is decided upon by the community through the voting system, which is why responsible voting is so important.
I use the word 'flagging' because it's important not to confuse this action with the opposite of upvoting, even though they effectively have opposite effects. The distinction is simple: whereas we are encouraged to upvote a post we like, it is not acceptable to flag a post simply because we don't like it. There has to be an objectively better reason for taking this action.
However, it's clear that we're seeing a lot of needless flagging, especially on popular posts (whether out of spite or some other reason), and even on less visible posts, for no apparent reason. For instance, I received a flag on one of my posts with an accompanying comment that simply read "You are not being intellectually honest". Baffled by this strange comment, I asked for an explanation, which I never got. The flag, however, remained.
Proposed solution
It does not seem right or fair that anyone should be allowed to devalue a post by flagging it for no good reason. Therefore, I propose a change whereby flags must be accompanied by a publicly stated brief reason for flagging, to be shown as a special kind of comment. There should also be a means of challenging a flag whereby it can be removed if enough users agree with the challenger, perhaps by indicating their agreement through voting on this flag comment accordingly. This, together with some clearly stated guidelines for flagging from @steemservices would also go a long way towards preventing the abuse of the flagging system.
It's important that we preserve the integrity of Steemit by making sure that such abuses of the system are discouraged as much as possible, and that the value of a post can be determined by the community freely and fairly without being skewed by needless flagging.
The concept of downvoting was changed to flagging only recently, and disincentivizing abuse is not its only use.
It's right and fair. Steem Power is an ownership stake in Steem. I've used downvotes on posts where I feel there is a negative benefit to the value of Steem as a whole to reward the poster. Here's an explanation I gave on one of these (rare) occasions:
It's usually a good idea and courteous, plus value giving, to comment on why a downvote was made. But there are a lot of serial spammers and auto-posting bots that to make a comment for each downvote would be frivolous. This is more of a social issue than a blockchain one.
No
I take your points. However, I have to disagree with the idea of using flags to indicate disapproval for a post just because you may think it lowers value - in that case, simply don't vote. The devs have clearly indicated that they want flagging to be treated differently than the downvoting you describe, by calling it flagging, giving it an icon than isn't a down arrow, and by placing the button elsewhere. I think the ergonomic/psychological intention of this is clear - flagging is not intended to be used as the opposite of upvoting, but is to indicate a post that is in contradiction of the community's code.
With regard to your point about bots, following from @dan 's latest announcement on the subject I think we're going to see a lot of improvement on that front anyway, which would lesson any bot-related problems with my proposed solution.
Doing nothing and allowing someone to be rewarded for lowering the value of Steem would be worse than doing my part in stopping it. I have a stake in Steem, and it's in my interest to protect its value.
Sure, I can get behind that. Perhaps then we need a separate system of downvoting. In my opinion, flagging should not be viewed in the same way, and I think the devs agree by making it different in the UI.
Summary of discussion in chat:
gs: Steemit UI matters most
pf: Steem is the meat and potatoes
gs: Steemit UI says flag
pf: Steem is upvote/downvote
gs: Steemit UI is all that matters because most people use it
pf: I use Steem CLI for many votes. You can flag abuse, and I can downvote when I feel it increases the value of Steem. We'll keep our concepts mutually exclusive :)
Senseless downvoting when the post is not spam, plagarism or offensive will devalue the platform as surely as censorship will devalue Twitter.
This is something that shows full transparency and we won't have people posting about these issues and asking why. (Or filling the steemitabuse channel and needing to explain)
I think the solution should be a dropdown
and an additional text field.
This would be in the form of a comment after pressing submit.
I agree, a dropdown would simplify the process even further.
agreed, steem seriously needs to implement something. some mofo just flagged one of my posts for a comment i made on his friends post.. wtf shit gets personal
https://steemit.com/steemit/@jefft/steemit-flagging-abuse-any-solutions
I once accidentally flagged @clains in the early days, before it was possible to undo votes. I sometimes weep at night from this accidental click, and now wield with as much caution as I would a gun.
I am all for this. My wife got a flag on her introduction post with no explanation whatsoever. If a flag is going to be used legitimately, it needs to be explained legitimately. I'm in full support of the system you described with challenging a flag and other users voting on it.
I think this would be contrary to this goal:
Everything here is based on vested stake in ownership and reputation. If someone with high stake flags something, they are putting their reputation on the line with that vote. If the community disagrees with them, they may lose followers and future influence.
I've noticed many down flags I disagree with are actually meaningless. They have no power behind them. I had a downflag on one of my posts and I happened to notice a conversation with that person, apologizing to someone else because they didn't understand how the system works. I left a polite reply and they were happy to reverse their flag and give me an upvote, which was their original intention. I think the system is working rather well so far, but then again, I haven't been blasted by any downvote bots (yet).
Yeah I understand your and @pfunk 's argument. I think our difference of opinion is based on the distinction between what's going on in the UI versus what that translates to under the hood. My argument is based on the semantics of the issue (i.e. calling it flagging etc.) whereas yours is more based on the technical side of things. Both are valid.
I will say that I think it's important to understand that for a lot of less knowledgeable users (like the one you describe) the way the UI is designed has a direct impact on the way they use the system, so although it's not the "meat and potatoes" it still carries a lot of weight in that regard. If the devs understand this (which I'm sure they do) then we can infer that they did mean for people to think of flagging differently to downvoting. I think that distinction could definitely do with some more refinement though, which would resolve this debate pretty effectively.
except that certain whales - @berniesanders for instance - will use a downflag bot and suddenly a 5000 upvote post is getting diddly squat because it has just 40 flags.
not sure if anything can be done...but im trying to make content, but a team of bots downvotes my post, there all making money on copyright enfringe newsstory bs check it out https://steemit.com/crypto/@twigg/usd800au-trade-account-update-2-cryto-s-soaring
I think steemit should add a review system, when you flag a post, Steemit goes to review it. If the post DOESN'T break their rules, nothing happens and the person who flagged will get a message, and if Steemit suspects the user is abusing the tool, they'll get a warning, and if they keep it up, Steemit mutes their account