Would you support an anti-abuse proposal?

in hive-120019 •  2 months ago 

Would you support an anti-abuse proposal?


This has been something on my mind for a while. I'm sure I'm not the only one. You have seen the comments and reports from @hivewatchers. You have seen the reports compiled by @jaguar.force. Even @steemflagrewards, an initiative I involved myself with, used to publish reports.

Here are the stats from one of @abh12345's most recent post:

Yes, they do important work. Often, thankless work. But, does it make sense to use the reward pool as the primary mechanism to fund such initiatives?

And before you say they could do it for free, try imagining being members of the @hivewatchers for a day. Try digging through the net to find frauds like @jaguar.force. Try reading through thousands of user submitted mentions like @steemseph did. Then, see if you'd like to commit to it for free.

I aim this question at the community in general, but especially at large stakeholders. @pharesim deployed his initiative via @curangel. Curators such as @ocd take it upon themselves based on reports. @themarkymark does it with his own and rented stake.

The platform slashed the reward pool to create a fund for proposals. In a way, anti-abuse initiatives should move away from reward pool. I mean, come on, those reports don't contribute much to actual engagement.

The question here is simple:

Would you support proposals from anti-abuse initiatives? In exchange, they will stop using upvotes as a mean to fund their operations.

Things to keep in mind

  1. Don't worry about the details of the operations yet.
  2. There will be time to discuss how things should run.
  3. There will be time to discuss what the community considers as abuse.
  4. Large stakeholders have more influence on the matter (or any matter on this chain).

If there is enough interest found, a proposal will follow to address the finer details. The details would include things such as accountability, protocols, rehabilitation, etc.


  • Yes

  • No

  • Other funding methods

  • Other creative implementation of initiatives (please specify)

Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I don't like to support jaguar.force cause he's rude and malicious both English and Spanish users could relate.

think of a way to stop abusers for anti-abusers.

And that's a fair statement.

I think he could approach people with a bit more tact.

i think he don't want to use tact, he likes to hide on his abuse of power and I dont want him to see him as a peacemaker because he don't had ethics or anything of armony, of course downvotes could make worthy things but in his case he uses it for destruction not for reform, I'm not talking only about his downvotes I'm talkin about his attitude.

btw, I was certainly afraid to say this cause he has power to downvote, really appreciate your middlepoint.

And I’m sure we can change that.

I wouldn't leave him around any puppies, he might kick them.

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

LMAO.
Says the scammer that was caught and admitted to impersonating 5 people in an id deception+plagiarism farm and was caught by...... @jaguar.force

Just Out, see the latest installment of the never ending ID farm:
https://peakd.com/fraud/@jaguar.force/id-theft-deception-farming-case-23-caso-de-robo-suplantacion-de-identidad-farmeo-23-hivemania-dobleve

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

You are very welcome. And thank you for handing me the evidence in a silver platter.

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

Your project doesn't help or support anyone, all you do is create fake accounts and onboard more scammers, that's your proven track record, time after time.
I have invested 4 years of full time work and talent to hunt scammers like you and that's a great service to the platform.
Furthermore, in response to your qualms about cleaners receiving funding via the reward pool(being a scammer yourself, oh the irony!) thats the precise point of this poll. Have a wonderful day and please take your scamming operations to Steem.

Voted for

  • Yes

I think it makes sense to move the funding of this work.

It makes sense to me too.

And I think @hivewatchers, @hive-dr, and @jaguar.force, etc. can also take the time to improve their operations.

We have tried such proposals in the past. Few were interested in supporting it. Just as few only were ever interested in supporting us in any way. Almost non of major whales/investors have ever been interested in supporting us.

Like using the DHF? Or are you talking about in general?

We attempted SPS and were told that we would have to chance. DHF would go the same way. Besides adm is has been generously supporting us since the start and is happy to do so. The only investor that has ever cared.
And we are happy with that too.

Imo, each curator projects could apply for DHF to get funding to create their abuse fighting group that sieves abuse beore they curate (that they repeatedly upvote abuse. Sometimes such obvious abuse that it is evident that they don't even read the posts).
They could have 2-3 investigators checking all the posts that they plan to upvote. If they will not get funding for it from DHF, I would be happy to add their investigations' reports into steemcleaners daily curation so they can get some rewards for it. And I am sure that other would follow up with curation.

Well, from the poll, at the time of this comment, at least one whale cares.

The alternative of voting their reports is another approach.

Voted for

  • Yes

  • It will add accountability and transparency to abuse fighting.
  • It will more equitably restore value to reward pool because fewer rewards will be removed for upvoting abuse fighters and more abusive rewards will be recovered by downvoting abuse.
  • It will add value to Hive overall because it will show non-Hive users we are serious about abuse and have a solid mechanism to fight it which is a huge criticism of this blockchain. Sort of an agreement by consensus.
  • It may encourage development and onboarding by people who are worried their content will be stolen, unfairly downvoted etc.

Edit: I posh for you.

At least, that's the hope when they go work in that direction.

Voted for

  • Yes

I do it myself too... and many more do it. So, recognizing everyone's effort would also be something nice to come up with. Something like a process that could "verify" eligibility and reward everyone for the effort... not just the "hive watchers". Nothing against them... I think it's essential... but put this as some sort of "army commission".

The complicated part is the organization. The nice part about the HiveWatchers (and maybe some others) set up is that people don't have to expose themselves to retaliation.

The same can continue... to happen... there are encrypted memos... lots of ways... to enable that without exposing people.

I for once don't really care to expose myself... I know how justify myself for the reasons I know. I have denounced many impostors to HiveWatchers... and I will continue to do it. I don't ask for money, but I know that if some kind of reward would be given, instead of a geek like me... finding needles inside a big farm, we would have an army of kids finding them for us.

I would still continue doing it for free. But that's me.

Yes, that's menial but super important work few are willing to take.

It makes angry people.

Voted for

  • Yes

I voted yes, but only for steemflagrewards.

Some flag groups (I won't name names) I never supported their methods. I never thought it is fair to incentive people to flag posts for profit. Some become careless, greedy, and even toxic against the people they downvote. Guilty until proven authentic is the upside-down law I have witnessed by certain blockchain crusaders. It is very scary communicating with them on discord when they are threatening you for questioning them.

Cowboy justice on a modern blockchain seems to be accepted by most, simply because they can. I think we should have a more responsible system to avoid harsh penalties of permanent blacklisting and downvotes on all content (for life!).

There does not seem to be any system in place to counter-act for-profit flaggers, other than retaliation. Maybe by openly weeding out for-profit flaggers not aligned with the approved flagging proposals, maybe it will turn the tides towards accountability. Flaggers should earn what they deserve for cleaning up the worst stuff, rather than over-doing it and earning as much as they are capable of. The proposal system should keep the amount of flags at a level most people are happy with, so it does not get out of hand (too many or too few).

I like any system that puts all flaggers underneath some system of global community governance. If many of them behave poorly, they should all be penalized. If they mostly perform admirably, they should all be rewarded.

The complexity of that organization would have to be better thought out as they move forward.

By moving the funding to the DHF, I hope some of that leverage would be given back to stakeholders.

If other initiatives wish to circumvent that, they better come up with their own method of funding/support that does not involve the reward pool.

Voted for

  • Yes

First off, thanks for being a part of what we did with @steemflagrewards. Irrespective of whether others acknowledge it, we made a difference, effected change, and helped our former chain preserve some semblance of credibility in reward distribution.

Compared to other parties with much greater stake, I still believe our impact had been impressive in proportion thanks to the system in place. Anyways, didn't intend to soapbox for SFR but the context and background is relevant.

Our very design was to rely on the reward pool to support those willing to do the thing that not everybody is willing to do. Some knowingly refrain from negative curation and opposing manipulation for social benefit while others are a different. We know we will get pushback yet we persist.

Some of us love taking the pretentious down a notch. Others it's just a matter of reward re-allocation, nothing personal. Whatever it is, we have realized there is value in the end result and thus worthy of supporting each other in the labor.

As much as I loathe the SJW hijacked phrase, it is very much about standing in solidarity for what we believe is true which perhaps boils down to fair rewards distribution, which coincides with our similar sense of justice and order perhaps.

I've gone on for too long. To sum it up, yes I would support a proposal and care not if that necessitates reward pool funding or not. I think I would be in the why not both camp though.

Imo it should be supported through any means but that support should be broad, not narrow. That's why I liked what we had put together with SFR. It was inclusive in nature. Anybody could put on the abuse fighter, help the cause and be compensated.

Lastly, do I think there had been a bit of sketchy rewards distribution in antiabuse groups. Yes, I sure did and, when it comes to that, there is a fine line between doing good and being a hypocrite.

I don't we really had a problem with that as our rewards were generally small. It is what it is.

Just trying to shape things for the better now that we have a chance.

Voted for

  • Yes
  ·  2 months ago (edited)

Voted for

  • Yes

Definitely. This should come from the DHF in the sense that this is contributing in building a better chain (and we could leave the pool free for what is has to be).

It’ll be better in the long run.

Now, let's see how things will materialise. For now, I have quite mixed feelings with the DHF as a whole...

Skepticism is fine.

There's always room for improvement. In theory.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

You can check this new community. I hope this will open the door for discussions. At least, this motivated me enough to give the DHF a last try (in the sense, I am fine not to be helped, but please tell me why) ;)

Will have to check it out. I know there is the Hive Think Tank one, as well as Hive Governance.

Haha, so many communities.

Mmmh I didn't know about these. I will have a look! Thanks!

I clearly vote for yes. I have already delegated and I would like to delegate again, but there are some details that do not add up. If the rules exist, they must be respected by EVERYONE without puerile inventions or attempts to justify, especially of friends who occupy influential roles or friends of friends.

Community feedback is needed to keep corruption in check. The DHF will hopefully offer that check and balance needed.

Voted for

  • Yes

I would much rather see this funded from the DHF than coming from the rewards pool. Please make this happen sooner than later.

Will forward that to them.

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

If this is about more funding for anti abuse, I would support it 100%!

This is poll is to gauge sentiments.

Voted for

  • Other funding methods

Protecting the rewards pool with funding from it will create a bias. A real world example of a bias similar to this in an economic principal is how Canadian judges receive 30% of the ticket value to their retirement pension on every ticket they rule on. It incentives higher penalties and in my opinion a miscarriage of justice as soon as the personal opinion of any individual is incorporated in a decision of any kind , not just legal.

And you chose other because you'd rather it not funded by the DHF as well?

Yes, I have a very perplexing personal disposition to the Decentralized Hive Fund. I am on the fence about how I feel about the Base Return Proposal.

I agree with the logic GTG uses and I was a huge supporter of his through the fork, I just do not have a confident feeling about how fast proposals change. Perhaps some more consistency from HDF would attract my support through that Avenue.

And that is a fair and legitimate concern.

If I had something intelligent to contribute I'd tag gtg but I will leave that for another day, it's late here and perhaps I can contribute more next time I come across this topic.

Consensus Models were the hot topics at Zcon0 in Montreal when I attended, it would be nice to look at our options for a 2nd set of witnesses that were strictly proposal witnesses that could run custom nodes for special circumstances leveraging decentralized systems already on the Hive blockchain to better manage resources like the DHF or the rewards pool.

Perhaps it's time to talk about Artificial Intelligence being used on the DHF?

Lol good night.

Voted for

  • No

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

No. Anti abuse work does not add any new value. If we need to do a tonne of anti abuse, then that's a sign of a broken system and we should instead fund work to analyze the flaws and prepare new somutions

And that's a fair point.

If the operations need to be large, there's something fundamentally wrong with the set up, as well the type of persons carrying out curation.

Quite a bold claim you make there as to anti-abuse not adding new value.

Upvotes are incentivized via curation rewards and often result in social benefit or quid pro quo even (aka circlejerk)

Where is the individual benefit for those willing to contend with the stigma of downvotes, the foregoing of social benefit which is generally the result of negative curation, and often the retaliation?

I must heartily disagree with your position that there is no value in antiabuse projects.

There is value in the coordination.
There is value in the camaraderie.
There is value in the defense of vindictive retaliation as a group.
There is value in teamwork.

These things and more were what SFR was about and more. Surely, you were stating things in a general sense but did not mean to insinuate my work did not add new value?

I just want to be clear I understand as I do recollect you using our service when it was a thing.

It's no more of a bold claim than saying that cleaning your house does not raise its value. That is, of course, not to say that cleaning isn't useful or necessary, but it does not add new value. It's rather a form of maintenance work, which is fine. But I would like to ask "how much time/resources should be needed to fight abuse to the point where it is no longer a significant problem?

Or in other words: How much maintenance work should a good system require?

If the required maintenance cost for a building exceeds a certain level, then at one point continuing to pay maintenance is a poor decision, and one should instead invest in a new building.

I feel the same way about Hive, and one of my main frustrations over the years with Hive/Steem is just how much time and effort is poured into activities that do nothing to grow the place. I would rather see abuse fighters do a proposal that has a structured approach to documenting flaws and articulating clear problem statements that needs to be addressed. Rather than endlessly putting bandaids on a decease that needs to be dealt with on a much deeper level.

I hope you at least see that I didn't mean to say that there's no benefit, short term, to the work that people like you are doing. But I would rather see us work hard to make it less necessary than it currently is.

Thanks, @fredrikaa.

I can def relate on the band-aid analogy as I believe many issues we had contended against are systemic in nature.

One particular point that had bothered me when doing the clean-up is the inconsistent nature in which standards would be applied in a system in which essentially "might makes right".

I do not have any fingers and toes to count the number of times we would have downvoted Bernie for instance but he made it expressly clear retaliation would occur had we.

For this and other reasons, I had conceived in my mind the only real solution is to design a new system. Not to suggest this system does not work.. It just doesn't in an optimal sense which is, of course, my opinion.

Do I think I can design a better system conceptually? Yes.
Do I know how to build that system technically? No.

As an ops guy, I have to essentially stumble my way through anything pertaining to front end design.

If anything, I am more of an idea guy than anything. Maybe one day I will be a part of a team savvy on the implementation side.

Anyways, as far as HIVE goes, I did imagine how things would have been with an OP downvote incentivization solution like SFR.

I still think with the right persons at the wheel such a thing would prove beneficial in moving the system just a bit closer to being a more uopian cooperative collective which I believe is something HIVE has a closer semblance of than anything else out there.

Anyways, I talk a lot about our kind building (that is those that hold dear the values of fairness in distribution) a new vision that sometimes I myself become weary of hearing it. I rather hope to instead build it than talk about it. Perhaps, I will find my second wind in life and make it happen.

Nevertheless, I have think the downvote program that we had running on Steem could be an asset to HIVE. It's much more of a low hanging fruit than any other lofty ambition I had in mind. Sorry for sort of rambling. Appreciate the reply

Voted for

  • Yes

perhaps, but def not @spaminator

Oh? Why specifically @spaminator?

Did you conveniently leave out this comment?

https://peakd.com/hive/@logic/q9x8tp

no. I think @spaminator is too liberal in who they add to their blacklist. Basically any short form content gets blacklisted and I think it hinders the overall potential of HIVE to be more than just a full-blown blogging platform

I don’t think they have been doing that recently. Otherwise, communities like Ask the Hive or AMA would be hosed.

It’s worth noting that @spaminator has taken over what @mack-bot used to do. That is, marking posts for downvotes later.

Any DHF funding we can use to allocate inflation away from upvote funding is a plus in my book.

A lot of us feel that way.

I would support it. Having worked as an abuse fighter in a community I think it is important to send a clear message about what is and isn't acceptable. Funding such an initiative only makes sense.

I'm just testing the waters here.

I’ll head over and vote yes in a mo!

Thanks for participating!

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Absolutely!

Voted for

  • Yes

Definite yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Voted for

  • Yes

Congratulations @enforcer48! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You distributed more than 60000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 61000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board and compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Vote for us as a witness to get one more badge and upvotes from us with more power!

Voted for

  • Yes
  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

The whole point of drafting a proposal is so they will stop doing that for funding.

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

It’d hopefully give community some control because the upvote practice for funding would then be frowned upon.

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment
  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

And that's a different take, but a valid one.

Thanks for chiming in!