I've been spending some time on Blurt to farm lolcows who keep mentioning me how great Blurt is as they leave Hive.
I sold my Blurt stake pretty early when it spiked and happy with some free cash. After that, I really haven't looked back. It's obvious a social network built on rewards can't function without a balance to upvotes. Blurt realized not long after launch they dun fucked up and had to implement a system to counter bad behavior since they removed downvotes completely. How this is wielded is another issue which I will get into a bit.
I'm sure you have by now seen a banner like this from a certain entitled wanker who is having a hissy fit that he can't recycle his content for rewards.
I made a slight change to make it a bit more accurate.
Anyway, let me first explain what this Coal list is before going further.
To counter abuse, a Coal (Collaboratively Organised Abuse List) list was added to counter abuse due to the lack of downvotes.
The effects are simple, in that the upvote button is removed from the author's posts and a warning sign is added to their Blog. This is again cosmetic and users that do not like this approach can use alternate frontends or start up their own.
It is also used to prevent delegation to Vote Trading Systems (they call VTS), at least from the front end.
I remember someone mentioned they were doing some Red Card system to counter abuse, I assume this is the result of that discussion. I really don't know all that much about Blurt, but the recent spam on Hive has got me to login and drop a few memes.
So, one of the users directed me to a post where someone is recommending self votes be disabled for everyone except witnesses. I could care less personally, but I did notice something weird when I skimmed the post.
In the post, the user mentions a particular user who is self voting a lot with little engagemnt. This user was singled out and used as an example. In response, megadrive (one of the founders of Blurt and BuildTeam) responded with this comment basically saying self voting is allowed and he is harassing this user and is being recommended for the Coal list, basically disabling this person's ability to get upvotes.
This is a blockchain that the lunatics leaving Hive keep shouting it is for free speech and crying downvotes are censoring their ability to have free speech. Meanwhile, they are putting people on lists that label them as abusers and disabling their ability to earn and participate solely based on making a suggestion and using a user as an example.
As far as I know (I may be wrong, I don't really know much about Blurt but this is what I heard early on), the Blurt foundation has super majority control based on their airdropped stake to control the top witnesses for a period of 2 years or something. From what I can see here, they are also using this Coal list as a weapon for anyone who says something that offends them.
If you want to see the post in question to get full context of this discussion, you can find it here.
I think you just read what you felt better. I also responded there in a different way. It was not just about a feature, it was about one user defaming other.
People were angry with hive, but that does not mean they will let that anger out on blurt.
Freedom of speech, yes it is there on blurt. But freedom of abuse, i don't think so.
Even speech freedom have a limit.
People can easily abuse that freedom when they say they were attacked by hive .
But blurt is not hive, not the people here are downvoters from hive, not the whales.
But if you take out the same hive things here, then you are the one who is still living in the hive.
But still as a freedom of speech, I welcome you here and your opinion. Just do check for more info before writing words.
Words can create wars.
Thanks
Yeah, no downvotes here (community voting on rewards) instead it's a gestapo who can remove all ability to earn rewards, and for whatever they feel offends them.
Well it's just how you think, not actually. And if you feel, there is the same process here. You already know what to do, or where to go.
Good luck with that
Common you know that the ability isn’t removed, other frontends can be used and they can appeal to be removed later. So like in your opinion moderators of any website keeping it safe from interpersonal abuse will be Gestapo then.
Honestly I don't fully understand the whole COAL thing, as far as I know it removes the ability to upvote a specific user or disables their ability to update, I am not even 100% sure.
They lose no ability to edit posts or vote or comment they still have free speech and don’t even get their posts hidden. Just get a warning icon and upvote button hidden on their posts, they can appeal after posting some decent content.
So basically they can't get upvotes?
Ok since I’m mentioned in the post let me respond to you, diplomatically ofcourse, as it should be.
Blurt is built on the foundation of economic freedom, free speech and being a peaceful and safe community.
Freedoms aren’t true freedoms if someone else’s freedom is impeded in the process, it then becomes zero sum.
So if your freedom of speech is used to create hyper-drama to get rewards by targetting another person, clearly marking them as a hunted target, while bullying and defaming them without provication over a matter like selfvoting which is not particularly enforced either which way, is totally out of bounds.
Now I wish to clarify firstly downvotes were removed not so much because the nullified rewards but rather because they could be used as a tool of war and to oppress others, they also attract a certain personality, I often joke privately that Ned recruited Steem whales by inviting his entire anger management class to join up.😀
The other thing with downvotes is they are a double tax, by voting something else you already direct the reward flow in favour of what you just voted.
The next point is that while Blurt the blockchain is uncensored, the frontends (there are at least 5) are privately and subjectively operated. Since these are subject to the laws governed by their hosting and DNS providers, they have to adhere to certain regulation. If an operator is witness to bullying, criminal acts, death and violence threats and other such blatent unlawful acts against anyone’s person and does not act, they can have a culpable liability issue, same goes for social group operators Discord/Telegram/Slack etc.
Each operator has certain tolerances, as long as I’m involved with the foundation I won’t tolerate bullying and hate speech against others, this supercedes freedom of speech because this act already infringed on someone else’s freedom of peace and soundness of mind. I also will not tolerate any exploitation or compromise of children in any way.
The COAL list is not pervasive or mandatory to be used to by every frontend although many choose to use it. It is a mitigation tool, cosmetic as you say, to signal to the community this person is only here to farm our rewards with PLG (infringement of original author rights) or duplicate copy paste or frequent spam. It isn’t strictly for other infringements as mentioned above but I have requested either the terms amended or a new list for this purpose created.
I also now recall that Blurt raspberry pi nodes are shipped as a monorepo including condenser (frontend) which can be called locally by browsing the ip address of your raspi for true edge-of-network computing, I would like to propose that the COAL list be removed from the local version and also check if the rpi consenser deployment still works.
Regarding the foundation control, it was imperative that we safegaurd the network by exherting a certain amount of influence to ensure governance wasnt taken over before the chain even had a chance to mature, the early on 🐓spam attack followed by the feeless witness parameter exploit bloat attack proved this was a good move and that Blurt needs an element of protection from hostile takeover, this was clear in our roadmap and we do not dispute it whatsoever.
In other words, Freedom definitely comes with responsibility. 👍
Well said, the response is explicit, exhaustive and clear enough. Blurt I keep saying is a great platform and will continue getting better with time.
The theory that "bad mouthing a platform" causes financial losses and "scares users and investors away" cannot be proven, how I see it. (it's kind of laughable, if you think about this expression).
To the contrary, I think people love the drama very much and stay for the very reason to be entertained when bored and to get involved when triggered. There is the statements that eventually one is tired with all the conflicts seen in the digital realms but I would throw in the assumption that as much people are stuck and attracted towards dramas as they leave the spaces. Don't ask me about percentages, that is not something one can measure anyway.
I am not eager to prove the theory but I think you could say that it's very likely that this is so.
From that standpoint you could say that exploitations are a matter of fact as much as support is a matter of fact. Users change, old ones go, new ones come. The majority without investing, the minority with investments of financial means. If I would be an investor, I would welcome all communications and interactions as long as the thing runs (like every PR is good PR). One may not like the contents but who cares? It's a bit cynical but all this moral talk can be seen as "engagement" if you will. Not that it is too much my cup of tea. Less moral talk I prefer.
Nothing fancy about that. All humans exploit the environments they move within. You cannot avoid it in total. For places like this (steem, hive, blurt) which can easily be gamed (once you've understood it, you can make up your mind if you want to be part of it) there are no final solutions on that, so there is endless debate because of that there are no final solutions.
It doesn't matter if on hive or here, authorities are called and asked to speak a clear word or do something with the code. If they were smart they would not let themselves be talked into to play the judge. If one wants to have a judge, on shall go to real life courts. Or, when open to a negotiator or mediator to have it negotiated with people given officially the mandate (per case and not in the open space).
For some reason though, people seem to like to have this debates or conflicts to be seen in the open. Well, there are some issues with that, but every thing has more than one side.
Now, what is your motive to speak about blurt? You think one blockchain is better than the other one? I would not lay my hand in fire with that. They can co-exist and why not?
I'm just checking it out after all the spam on Hive about how Blurt is bitter and free speech and all, then I see this and scratch my head.
What is there to scratch about? It's clear that gossip is spreading all over the places and that statements are made. What's the problem?
You think there is someone to blame if business goes bad?
He scratches his head because he has to! 😂 *cough
He would scratch his nutsack if he had one!
😂👍 I love Blurt! Marky bashing and no downvotes from buildamark...
hahahaha
As I read through this, I tried to hold myself and be as polite as possible... But lol man, you are bittered and it tells in every post you make. You can criticize everything on blurt as you like but truth be told, you are only bittered cos Blurt is better than your downvote Hive.
Yeah I didn’t see it for a bit and the amount of time and energy the old markey mark is spending on blurt shows this platform has really triggered him. I’m bored now tho it was fun for a couple of posts. Just leave it to outofthematrix now to keep the funny memes going.
Give it to man mate!!! 😂👍🏆❤️
So your comparing blurt, where a few top people with a strong moral compass can decide if someone is being abusive to others. Meanwhile on hive ANYONE with lots of money can destroy people like @cryptopie, @kennyskitchen or @projecthope just to name a few... and when politley asked why they were down votted the reply is fuck you from an account titled @thevil? Also downvoted by other accounts with 666 in them. That is the hive/blurt comparison you are making?
I think it s a great comparison. Looking forward to your next post.
Don’t forget @cryptofinally being driven off.
I never downvoted her once, in fact I upvoted her a few times.
By Hive in general, she was pretty much mobbed and threatened with a video of a hooded guy.
I remember her. I hope some day she will find Blurt
LOL, I'm sorry this was funny.
Moral compass like someone who promises to never to use over 200,000 Steem for his own profit, but then steals it to support his delegation business on Steem.
First off, I am not thevil, no ideal who that is, I never respond to people like that.
Second, there are many reasons why Project Hope was flagged (plagiarism, circle jerking, demanding users give owner beneficiaries to get big votes aka vote trading, as well as other reasons. In fact, you guys are talking about putting people who vote trade on COAL list, you even said it yourself I believe, so here you would have completely removed their ability to get upvotes, not just downvote them.
Oh, I just released my next post, quite on topic, loaded with facts (I know you are allergic to them). Enjoy!
Lol really looking up to the next cheap meme-post
Nice to see you getting involved with Blurt Marky!
Good job @themarkymark ! You have convinced @Lucylin to return to the Hive. Lol
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
people will love you here
and as a pakistani i welcome you here
I dont love him, hes a twat...
No body love him now
No worries mate.
Try the new NaPalM button …
The Nasty Prick Mute Button.
I'll take things I don't give a shit about for $2,000 Alex.