RE: The Unpopular Truth
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I'm glad they're challenging her. She has been posting nothing but Ai generated or content by others in threads, so I checked her blog. After thinking it sounded too polished for the content she typically shares I checked it on a free plagiarism checker. It came out clean, but it's more likely she pays to have the same checker service rewrite it for her, so it appears to be original. Notice the topics... None of her topics are original in any way. It's all topics typical spammers use, because it's been extensively written about by early bloggers. HW uses better paid services to check content and have found it elsewhere, so requires she proves it's her content. I bet it isn't and she's been lying to and stealing from everyone, including you for quite a while
Thanks for sharing this information. I'm interested to see whether they actually put up a source. There's been a long history of abuse on their behalf, but I certainly do acknowledge and appreciate when they catch someone legitimate.
I think they used to add the source, but the comment came across as being too accusatorial, so they just went with this to ask them to verify rather than pointing fingers right off the bat. Other users were taking it as proof of plagiarism in the past and attacked people. This more laid back approach has limited witch hunts by those who come across these comments on content. It's an innocent until proven guilty approach
I'd consider it innocent until proven guilty if they didn't automatically start downvoting all of a user's posts. Asking first without downvoting is non-accusatory. This is among the big issues I've had with them - they punish before even giving people an opportunity to reply. This scares innocent people away.
I do disagree with those who witch hunt, of course. Proof first! Enact justice the right way.
To be honest, they did already find proof of plagiarism and it's on her to prove it wasn't. The biggest argument is that no one is guaranteed rewards, whether or not it's original, so it's not really a punishment. I disagree with them, but the largest accounts disagree with us and they have the power. This is just an investment to them and they'll say that they are simply protecting it. Now again I disagree, but if code allows it it's the law
Frankly I'm against having a centralized entity doing this job, controlled by one person. Not to mention the fact that this entity is earning A LOT more in DHF funds than they protect by downvoting (primarily) tiny users, but that's besides the point.
This entity alone is the most centralized aspect of Hive, and frankly functions as its own worst enemy, despite the good intentions with which it began.
If we have decentralized entities (individuals) doing the same downvoting, you wouldn't hear opposition from me.
Hope that makes sense, because I'm not against the downvoting mechanism (and the concept of "rewards aren't guaranteed") in general.
I agree, but unfortunately the majority of those touting decentralization don't actually understand it or want it. That's why the HW DHF has passed. People want others to do the dirty work for them. That being said, recently HW withdrew the proposal for 350HBD a day and introduced one asking for much less at 95HBD
Didn't see that! It's a least a bit more reasonable (not to say that I'd support it).
Anyway... we'll see what happens with this user. Not sending rewards just yet.
Hello @alphahippie
That is correct. The articles are either directly generated by AI or it is plagiarism of AI-generated articles (possibly from Hindi or Urdu).
Also, comments are spamming with AI-generated images.
The analysis of the last few posts.
There is a related account that has been abused with similar content. Possibly the same person - "sabrinah". It is possibly a fake female identity. The account has been spamming with identical AI-generated articles and AI comments (and also refused to verify).
Some of abuses in "sabrianh" account:
I would be very careful in curating any content in Free Compliments. In the past few years, this curator has proven to be endlessly onboarding and curating abusers. More than 60-70% of accounts that have been curated by that curator have been heavy abusers (mass plagiarists and/or AI-content fraud spammers, etc)
The list of some of the major abusers curated by Free Compliments:
hafizaftab
irfanmustafa
irfanmustafa1
leana-ramen
legendwushu
lifeclicks
maurojd
nabbas0786
nazashraf
revjohno
silarai
I'd also be careful to trust the way that this account misrepresents what we do.
We've only begun onboarding people this month, and none of the people mentioned in this list have been onboarded by us. If this is an example of your investigative skills, then you're doing an extremely poor job.
Your classification of abuse has also been inconsistent, including the usage of AI (which we do not strictly prohibit, if properly attributed). Additionally, your classification of the "majority" of our users is also a sweeping generalization, incorrect, and frankly offensive, as most of our users, including those who joined at the very beginning, are trusted members who have been posting here honestly for years, and continue to do so.
Remember that we;re dealing with one individual here, @alphahippie, who is, after all, a human. The bias is extensive, and the dishonesty is rampant. Since I've run this community with a stringent focus on free speech, they've selectively targeted our users for a while, including quite a few innocent ones. A few of the users listed above were actually relatively new users who didn't understand Hive at the time of their initial offenses, and corrected their behavior after I spoke to them.
Regarding @lucidlucrecia - Lucrecia, I'd greatly appreciate if you would attribute your articles as using AI to assist, if you are doing so. It's a small line to include at the end. Several months ago we did collectively decide, as a community, to not curate completely AI-generated articles.
@sabrinah, I think you should see this because your name was mentioned with an accusation, but without a tag.
EDIT: also, how does identity verification help if the accusation is using AI to generate articles? 🤔
Oh, I know all about it.
The first three were dragged out when I said I wasn't willing to share my social media account and that I wanted to remain anonymous.
Those were posts I made at the beginning when I barely knew my way around here.
The last ones are thread replies I contributed to Threadcasts on Inleo.
I heard AI was allowed on the thread cast since we are trying to add more content to #LEOAI. I did forget to mention it was AI generated since I thought it was accepted and all.
Once hive watchers said AI comments are not allowed, I stopped contributing to the threadcast altogether.
No, @hivewatchers, I am not the owner of those accounts you added to my name. With my high activity on Hive, I wouldn't have the strength to run two accounts. I am not a bot. I just have insomnia and I sleep less so with Hive I can dedicate those hours to commenting and writing instead of wasting away or looking to drink or use drugs.
Your account is
notblacklisted.It has been removed from the blacklist?
Yes. I recommend refraining from publishing fraudulent content.
Thank you. I understand.
What do I need to do to remove my account from blacklist?
Just fyi, AI comments are allowed on Hive; it's just that the person running Hivewatchers doesn't like them. They don't own Hive and cannot dictate what is and what is not allowed.
If they were honest enough to use their personal account to downvote AI content, I wouldn't criticize them. However, they're using a DHF-funded account, which makes it a centralized entity that's funded only because of a few people with high stake.
Even the owner of HSBI revoked their vote on their proposal because of disagreements with AI usage, which were instituted without prior discussion with the community as a whole (this change occurred before I joined Hive).
Barely knew?
https://hivel.ink/hive-174578/@anonyi/abuse-report-too-many-coincidences
I've been here since the days of Steem, so fully understand the issue. What you may not know is that @guiltyparties doesn't just run HW, but also helps people recover keys to their account, regain access to hacked accounts and other tech support a decentralized platform wouldn't normally have.
I actually know that guiltyparties is not the primary individual running the HW account on a day-to-day basis. Guiltyparties does provide some very valuable services here!
Then it's not just one person like you've been claiming. GuiltyParties is the primary guy for HW and always has been. There's a team involved here, because it's a very complex issue with a very high occurrence of spam for farming. India and Nigeria are the top countries where these scammers originate.
I meant one person running the account on a day-to-day basis, communicating with people through the HW account and making decisions. To my understanding, most of these decisions and communications are not run by guiltyparties directly.
Yes, I have noticed that members from those two countries have been the most substantial perpetrators. I think you can count Pakistan there as well (at least from my limited experience here). I certainly don't want to discriminate against posters who are from those countries, but it may be worth keeping an eye.
@yecier just tagging you here since there's some discussion about manual curation and the origin of some scammers/spammers that we may come across.
FC's intent on freedom compared to other communities unfortunately makes it ripe for abuse.
He was the main guy back in the Steem days when I had a run in with them. Things do change, but he's one of the founders of the program, I do believe. I showed them the proof they asked for and never had a problem since. Those who choose to put up a big stink and not do the simple thing by showing the content is original, means they stole it and are trying to push the attention away from themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. For instance, some people want to remain anonymous on Hive, and that's their right. You don't necessarily have to reveal your personal identity on social media. It's not a requirement, and frankly should not be. Privacy is a stringent value for some people.
Now, if someone's direct content is being plagiarized, and the author is earning from it, then I can absolutely understand skepticism. That's literally theft of intellectual content.
What I don't like is that HW asks for such verification to be posted to other social media accounts (some people want Hive to be separate, and that's ok) and conduct a lot of their "business" through Discord, a centralized entity, rather than directly on Hive. Nobody should be forced to use other platforms just to satisfy HW's individual demands. Everything can be done on Hive.
In Lucrecia's particular case, the suspicion was that the content was AI-generated. Asking for identity in this situation is inappropriate. Providing proof of AI generation would also be appropriate, since there's an accuser. Otherwise, you're operating under a "guilty until proven innocent" presumption.
I certainly can't speak for how HW was back in the day, only what I've seen while I've been here. I distinctly recall liking the idea of HW the first time I came across it - until I saw the interactions.