[DE] Please scroll down for English version
Ein paar Worte zur COAL-Liste, wie es zukünftig besser funktionieren könnte und ein Vorschlag für eine zukünftig bessere Lösung.
Grundsätzlich haben wir ein Dilemma, auf der einen Seite legen wir auf Blurt sehr großen Wert auf freies Bloggen und auf der anderen Seite müssen wir bestimmte Accounts einschränken, wenn wir nicht untergehen wollen.
Aktueller Stand
Jeder kann in Discord im report-abuse-or-appeal Channel Accounts melden. Jemand vom Blurt Team prüft den Account und setzt ihn dann ggf. auf die COAL-Liste.
Das Ganze ist ein sehr aufwändiger Prozess, derjenige der meldet, hat vorher vielleicht schon Stunden recherchiert, vom Blurt Team nochmals die Prüfung, doppelte Arbeit. Dazu kommt, manchmal meldet sich später der betroffene Account, streitet alles ab, gibt sich empört, obwohl die Sache eindeutig ist. Es ist wirklich erstaunlich, wie unverfroren manche vorgehen.
User und Accounts
Bevor wir zu einer möglichen Verbesserung kommen, zum besseren Verständnis kurz der Unterschied zwischen Usern, Bots und MultiAccounts.
User: Ein User ist der Mensch, der hinter einem Account steht. Wir wissen, hinter dem Account jacobgadikian steht Jacob, hinter megadrive Ricardo usw. Das sind alles echte Accounts mit echten Menschen dahinter.
Bot: Ein Bot ist ein Account der von einer Software gesteuert wird, dahinter steckt ein Betreiber, der die Software am Laufen hält.
MultiAccounts: Das sind 10, 100 oder mehr Accounts, die von einem oder einer Gruppe von Usern betrieben werden. Vorwiegend um ein Maximum an Rewards aus dem System zu extrahieren oder durch Spam oder andere Aktionen der Chain und somit den Usern zu schaden.
MultiAccounts arbeiten teilweise mit spezieller Software, die z.B. Texte aus den Internet stiehlt, verfremdet und dann wieder veröffentlicht.
Kennzeichen von MultiAccounts sind eine minimale Beteiligung an der Community, Upvotes kommen von Upvote-Bots und/oder regelmäßig von immer den gleichen Usern. Transaktionen zu Börsen wie Ionomy oder ProBit haben oftmals das gleiche Memo, somit das gleiche Konto auf der jeweiligen Börse.
Collage Bild1 | Bild2 Pixabay
Wächter
Eine Verbesserung des bisherigen COAL-Systems könnten vertrauenswürdige Wächter sein, so wie es von Jacob schon angedacht war. Ein Wächter könnte z.B. einen bestimmten Tag wie z.B. #deutsch oder #blurtafrica im Auge behalten und nach sorgfältiger Prüfung Accounts direkt auf die COAL-Liste zu setzen.
So könnten erkannte Accounts viel schneller und mit weniger Aufwand auf die Liste gesetzt werden.
Außerdem, auch bei sorgfältiger Prüfung kann ein Fehler passieren, ein Wächter könnte viel schneller den betreffende User wieder aus der Liste streichen. Den bisherigen Prozess um von der Liste gestrichen zu werden finde ich viel zu aufwändig und herabsetzend für den betroffenen User. Wenn der Wächter das Gefühl hat, der User hat verstanden um was es geht, dann sollte die Geschichte auch erledigt sein.
Die Hauptaufgabe eines Wächters wäre primär MultiAccounts ausfindig zu machen und nicht echte User zu traktieren.
Darum meine Unterscheidung zwischen Usern und MultiAccounts. Ich denke, die vielen Diskussionen und Einwände gegen eine COAL-Liste speisen sich aus der Ansicht, dass damit echte User an den Pranger gestellt werden sollen. Unser Problem, aus meiner Sicht, sind nicht einzelne User die vielleicht aus Unwissenheit fremde Inhalte kopieren.
Die Frage ist jetzt, wollen wir etwas in der Art und wenn ja, wer würde so einen Job übernehmen? Es wäre zeitaufwändig und keine angenehme Aufgabe.
Ein Beispiel
Schauen wir uns als Beispiel den Account @shazara im ecosynthesizer an, begrenzen die Anzeige auf "Create Account":
7 Accounts wurden von diesem erstellt, darunter z.B. @rokib1212, folgt man diesem Account kommt man wieder zu weiteren erstellten Accounts:
Das Geflecht ist schier endlos... Ihr seht, keine leichte Aufgabe und in kurzer Zeit kommt man auf viele Accounts. Die Forderung die ich immer wieder höre, jeder Account der auf die COAL-Liste kommt soll vorher per Kommentar gewarnt werden. Das ist manuell kaum machbar und wenn man sich einmal in diesem Sumpf begeben hat, auch aussichtslos.
Das führt zum nächsten Punkt:
Automatische Wächter
Findet ein Wächter einen MultiAccount, könnte ein Bot die Strukturen automatisch weiter analysieren und auf die COAL-Liste setzen. Das wäre ein Ansatz, den wir auch überlegen könnten.
Das Problem und das sehe ich deutlich, wir riskieren dadurch einen eventuellen Kurseinbruch, weil die User die diese Strukturen betreiben wahrscheinlich Blurt verlassen werden. Schwierige Geschichte, heikles Thema.
Die Lösung?
Mein Ansatz ist eine so gut es geht manuelle Chain. In meinem Post Blurt, the best of all platforms? habe ich die Idee, Votes und Kommentare nur noch über das Frontend zu ermöglichen in den Raum gestellt. Ich meine damit, eine Implementierung auf API-Ebene, nur noch Dienste die von der Blurt Foundation bzw. den Top 20 Witness einen API-Key bekommen haben, können bestimmte Transaktionen ausführen.
Damit bräuchten wir keine Wächter, denn die oben beschriebenen Strukturen wären in der Form nicht mehr machbar.
Richtig rentabel werden diese Strukturen erst durch Delegationen, damit können sie fremde VP für ihre Zwecke einsetzen. Daher unterstütze ich auch die Idee, nicht an Vote-Services zu delegieren.
Zusammenfassung
Votes, Posts und Kommentare nur noch über das Frontend, Vote-Services sind damit nicht mehr möglich, danach Deaktivierung der COAL-Liste.
[EN]
A few words about the COAL list, how it could work better and a suggestion for a better solution in the future.
Basically we have a dilemma, on the one hand we place a very high value on free blogging on Blurt and on the other hand we have to restrict certain accounts if we don't want to go under.
Current status
Anyone can report accounts in Discord in the report-abuse-or-appeal channel. Someone from the Blurt team will check the account and put it on the COAL list if necessary.
The whole process is very time-consuming, the person reporting may have spent hours researching beforehand, and the Blurt team checks again, so it's double the work. On top of that, sometimes the account concerned gets in touch later, denies everything, acts outraged, even though the matter is clear. It is really astonishing how brazenly some people proceed.
Users and accounts
Before we come to a possible improvement, for a better understanding, briefly the difference between users, bots and multi-accounts.
User: A user is the person behind an account. We know that behind the account jacobgadikian is Jacob, behind megadrive is Ricardo, and so on. These are all real accounts with real people behind them.
Bot: A bot is an account that is controlled by software, behind which is an operator who keeps the software running.
MultiAccounts: These are 10, 100 or more accounts that are operated by one or a group of users. Mainly to extract a maximum of rewards from the system or to harm the chain and thus the users through spam or other actions.
MultiAccounts sometimes work with special software that, for example, steals texts from the Internet, alienates them and then publishes them again.
Characteristics of MultiAccounts are minimal participation in the community, upvotes come from upvote bots and/or regularly from the same users. Transactions to exchanges such as Ionomy or ProBit often have the same memo, thus the same account on the respective exchange.
Collage Bild1 | Bild2 Pixabay
Wardens
An improvement to the current COAL system could be trusted wardens, as Jacob had already thought of. A warden could, for example, keep an eye on a certain tag such as #deutsch or #blurtafrica and, after careful examination, put accounts directly on the COAL list.
This would allow recognised accounts to be added to the list much more quickly and with less effort.
Moreover, even with careful scrutiny, a mistake can happen and a warden could much more quickly remove the user in question from the list. I find the current process for being removed from the list far too time-consuming and demeaning for the user concerned. If the warden feels that the user has understood, then the matter should be resolved.
The main task of a warden would be primarily to track down multi-accounts and not to torment real users.
Hence my distinction between users and multiAccounts. I think the many discussions and objections to a COAL list are fed by the view that it is intended to pillory genuine users. Our problem, from my point of view, is not individual users who perhaps copy other people's content out of ignorance.
The question now is, do we want something like this and if so, who would take on such a job? It would be time-consuming and not a pleasant task.
An example
Let's look at the account @shazara in ecosynthesizer as an example, limit the display to "Create Account":
7 accounts were created by this one, among them e.g.. @rokib1212, if you follow this account you come back to other created accounts:
The network is almost endless... As you can see, it's not an easy task and in a short time you get many accounts. The demand I hear again and again is that every account that is added to the COAL list should be warned in advance via a comment. This is hardly feasible manually and once you have entered this quagmire, it is also hopeless.
This leads to the next point:
Automatic wardens
If a warden finds a MultiAccount, a bot could automatically analyse the structures further and put them on the COAL list. That would be an approach we could also consider.
The problem, and I can see this clearly, we risk an eventual price drop by doing this because the users running these structures are likely to leave Blurt. Difficult story, delicate subject.
The solution?
My approach is to manually chain as best I can. In my post Blurt, the best of all platforms? I floated the idea of allowing votes and comments only via the frontend. By this I mean an implementation at API level, only services that have received an API key from the Blurt Foundation or the Top 20 Witness can carry out certain transactions.
This would mean that we would not need any guards, because the structures described above would no longer be feasible in this form.
These structures only become really profitable through delegations, because in this way they can use foreign VPs for their purposes. Therefore, I support the idea of not delegating to vote services.
Summary
Votes, posts and comments only via the frontend, vote services are no longer possible, then deactivation of the COAL list.
Welcome to Blurt [DE] | Welcome to Blurt [EN]
Thank you for this very detailed publication about the functioning of the coal and how to combat all these systems that damage our ecosystem. Something important to clarify is that this is not new, this system has been in operation for a long time, and precisely because of the attacks that occurred in December this api had stopped working. In a recurrent way the last months all these subjects have been taken and treated towards the users. So I am surprised that many claim that they are not informed or their opinions are not taken into account.
BLURT MUST BE CONTENT NEUTRAL
each individual user should be able to screen what they can see and what they hide
as soon as you dip your toe into content moderation - you kill the promise of decentralization
jah bless
Den Ansatz finde ich gut. Alles raus was automatisierte Prozesse ermöglicht.
Yes, something must be done because I have seen plagiarized introductory posts in different languages, they only change the cover photo holding the sign with the user and the date. Unfortunately the manual review of each of these accounts takes time, but we have to take action. Thank you for taking the time to make this post.
It is very good that we talk about these issues openly. A lot of work has gone into this subject. It will take much trial and error to get it working to everyone’s approval. Blurt is awesome.
It is good to follow up but it is not only knowing that a person has many accounts, but doing something about it, lately there is a lot of plagiarism, sometimes I hesitate to curate new users, they generate a lot of doubt in me.
Yes, that is unfortunately true. I've even seen intro posts where you can't rely on notes with the username and date. It's hard to believe. And I almost think Blurt has more students from Bangladesh than the country has inhabitants ;-)
jajaja yeahhh.
Hahahaha.
Made me laugh so hard.
Wow 😲😲😲
It's true. There was an account I even saw two weeks ago with double introduction post. And he got voted on the both of them. I began to wonder why people would be doing such. It's totally wrong. And just like that was not enough, someone also copied and pasted one of my comments in a post into the same post. I was like, does this guy not have a sense humour at all? He just copied everything and pasted it in the same comment section of the post. It's so crazy and annoying that people now don't even copy only contents, but comments as well.
Thanks for your ideas on this. For now the coal may not be good, but development is going on for more smooth work.
Again the blockchain is free for everyone to use. We are only blocking things on foundation run frontend. The idea is to let anyone run a frontend and apply his own rules on top of frontend rather over blockchain itself that requires a hardfork and not possible everytime.
So currently coal list is a way by which voting bots can filter accounts
I am in favour of new users using the voting bot, but upto a limited power after which they can be denied to use the tool. Just my idea, as whales may be misusing this along self vote later.
And yes finding the plag content source and proof is hard, we did one and he was refusing that he used the copied content, that too in a bad language. The copied words does not even explain things right.
After giving all proofs as searched by two of our users who are now wardens too.
He was still lying and against our decision.
So, the thing is if he create right content for 7 days and right a post appeal, he can be unblocked as instantly unblocking may let him copy from another source and more work for people to do.
Only i can say there will be iterations to coal over time.
But if that is stopped, there is no scope and no way, that we can see the improved coal version.
Thanks for your post 😊
Currently, the API is free for all to use, that's already clear. So I wouldn't see that set in stone.
We can decide to change that, possibly via some kind of API key. The question is whether there is a majority that wants that or not.
I say yes!
I will have a chat with you for optimal fix to this. I know you have concerns, but that can be solved
Wait, isn't it possible to block specific operations like voting, posting, commenting on rpc/api level? I don't want to have another blacklists/whitelists segregation of users and apps
@tekraze
Again, doing this will be blockchain level and need a hard fork or atleast soft fork.
But doing this will also means taking away the freedom.
Again there will be people protesting against this because no one custom will be able to remove those and if they do chances are 50-50 for failure and success.
I don't understand that now. Nothing would change for frontend users.
What would be restricted would be the operators of automated services. They would only get the rights that the API key gives them. Similar to GitHub, here I can also authorise certain applications and determine what these applications are allowed to do.
Maybe I haven't described my idea clearly enough?
Yes, your idea is clear.
But again questions who will be managing the keys.
Who will issue the key
What if key is stolen or given to someone not wanted.
I can assure you anything with the keys is not a good idea.
Some may disagree to me but that's fine as its what i experienced
I think COAL is a necessary action for the self preservation of the platform. Content theft is an actionable crime by many jurisdictions worldwide.
I disagree with the idea that vote services be disallowed. I've mentioned many times now that I believe Blurt benefits from for lack of better term "pure investors" who have little to no time for blogging or curating.
Based on admissions made in the last round of this topic where an end to all delegations was thrust onto the community, it was revealed that much investment had been a leading cause to the rise in Blurt valuation. A rise that has benefited all here.
I think that rise was welcome, and demands an examination on how we here at Blurt can encourage more such investment from what is a much larger pool than those who would blog contains.
This involves understanding investment motives for many who have actual investment money. Those folks aren't just sitting around looking for ways to increase their content thieving ways. If they are stealing content (I imagine most of the upvote service users aren't) shame on them, but I imagine they are trying to find a shortcut to get that return rather than writing.
If the community wants to end these users from pulling shenanigans, wants to end the use of them by investors who want the return without the time sink, then why not add a feature in the wallet that would allow one the ability of collecting 10 votes at 100% self vote. It would allow a quick in and out of ones wallet. If the worry is they will still post, perhaps add a feature that blocks posting to the chain for 24 hours from the time the claim in wallet is made. Although that seems overkill personally.
It's argued that upvote services are not community oriented, well neither is self upvote which is allowed. One could say that it is the same thing really, other than with the vote services one is going all in.
I believe there is room here for investors that have no desire to be part of a blogging community. Their addition makes all of our communities here stronger.
And at the end of the day, those of us who are active in communities will earn way more than they do. I'll use this post right here as an example.
It's currently valued at 1981.15. It's valued so highly because those of us in the community who are communing with you now on these topics are voting a portion of our stake pull here.
The only way someone with a self vote or vote service would ever accomplish this is by owning millions of stake, and it would be a one and done use. This is not a one and done use for you however. You didn't vote on your post, this all came from the community. You still have all of your vote power to spread out elsewhere and earn curation on. The pure investor will not get that, that is a benefit that comes from being community minded.
Yes, I think I understand your approach, it would be an incentive for investors. But how should this work in practice, should there be extra investor accounts that are automatically credited with the curation?
For example, I could get such an account and transfer my BP to this account and double my curation rewards. That would be tempting so I could say goodbye to retirement ;-)
I see no need for there to be an extra account. And transferring to another account would affect nothing.
I proposed for those who might oppose someone being able to still post the option to stop posting for 24 hours from claim in wallet, but personally don't see the need.
If others wish to reward someone who is selfish with their stake because they appreciate the contribution that person makes is in my opinion between those voting their own stake and the recipient, regardless of what the recipient does with their stake. It's not my stake to decide whether others have the right to allocate to another because it doesn't fit my preferences.
I would use authors, or artists or film directors as an example.
They are rewarded due to appreciation for what they have manifested for others. I view our blogs here in the same light. Those who create words/thoughts or pictures etc that others find beneficial have a place here to be rewarded that is independent of their level of community participation, in the same way I don't expect an author like Steven King to be my friend for me to buy(reward) and read his work. I don't expect him to perform other actions to qualify for my reading and consumption of his efforts I sought to enjoy.
To clarify on Steven King, merely using him as an example. I only enjoyed his very early work, hahaha.
My thought is, if we automatically distribute both Curation and Author Rewards to the Wallets, then the reward pool would be empty. With this we could then also disable the upvote button, from an empty pool there is nothing left to distribute.
That sounds like the Splash system Jacob was talking about. I hope it doesn't go that way myself as I would have to become a passive investor due to tax complications/liabilities. Let me explain.
Currently based on U.S. tax law, what I receive is considered income. I pay taxes on it as such.
After that, then when it leaves my possession it's considered either a short or long term capital gains. Anything one holds for less than one year becomes a short term capital gain and is taxed at 50% of profit realized. Over one year is a long term capital gain which is then taxed at 20% of profit realized.
Under that system I would be liable twice immediately, once for collecting as income, again for tipping as a capital gains tax if that is what you mean. I would find myself unable and unwilling to create so much short term capital gains tax coupled with an additionally insane amount of record keeping. I'm already spending about 20 minutes per day in record keeping as it is, and I need to spend several hours in the coming weeks to collect values to get prepared for my tax liability as income on Blurt for last year. I simply don't have the time nor the desire to owe more in taxes under that form of system, and it would defeat a large part of what makes Blurt (and previous Hive and Steemit) magic for myself.
Under the current system, I'm not taxed on the half of my vote that goes to another, because it never enters into my possession. So I can help others, or show appreciation for others without it being a tax event for myself.
That's part of why despite my argument for allowing investors to collect 100% of a self vote in the wallet, I personally wouldn't be using it. I believe that there is more value in voting others, and appreciate the ability to do so without making me a victim of taxation by the greedy people who rule my country. There is a reason no exchange of volume worth trading on will accept residents of my country.
I believed your idea was to give investors both Curation and Author Rewards. I guess I misunderstood that then.
Your understanding was correct. What I wasn't proposing was taking the current ability of voting away from those of us who are more community minded and enjoy sharing our claims with others. I believe there is room here at Blurt for both community minded and purely greed driven minded, and that adding the option for the greed minded will benefit all of us from an increased demand for Blurt forcing a rise in valuation as more become willing to become passive investors.
As I mentioned, those of us who are more community minded will grow much quicker as we are building relationships with others of like mind, and redirecting portions of our claim to others without it being a tax event as your addition would create.
I wasn't pitching for this to be forced on all, just an addition for those who would invest without the time sink those like us prefer. Under a tipping system as proposed for Splash and I believe by you in your idea onto mine, I suddenly am burdened with a lot more record keeping and suddenly the tax burden for what is now not mine.
I already told Jacob if and when Splash might become reality, by necessity I can not afford to act in the same way as I do here, because for every coin I give away I'll owe a coin in taxes.
It's difficult for me to come up with the taxes I already have to pay, as I've never cashed a crypto into fiat to this day. I believe last year my increase in tax penalty for Hive was a couple hundred dollars, and I'm foreseeing my taxes that will classified as income in a few months for Blurt from last year will probably add an additional perhaps 1000.00 onto my tax bill, which I will have to come up with out of my pocket as I don't wish to power down that amount and sell it to pay.
The current design for those like myself who want to be community minded is perfect for tax purposes. But despite that being the best model for myself, I see the benefit of allowing those who want all the chips for themselves to invest here, despite it not being my personal preference.
Ah ok, now I think I understand how you mean it, would be an interesting experiment. Everyone could set it the way they want.
The tax in your country is a strange thing, very strange. In my country you have to pay only when you exchanged in FIAT currency, because the profit is not known until the exchange.
CRYPTO MUST BE TRUSTLESS
BLOCKCHAIN MUST BE TRUSTLESS
(IFF) A TRANSACTION CAN BE SELECTIVELY BLOCKED (THEN) DECENTRALIZATION IS DEAD
I'll be answering the many replies you've made in a post to keep from repeating myself a bunch of times.
You can write fan fiction as long as its not for profit.
What you can't do is publish the original piece pretending it's yours.
Can you imagine if we were able to submit the finest literary works as our own?
you mean like walt disney did with snow white and cinderella and the little mermaid
I can't speak in this instance, other than to say I know the copyright laws only go back so far so possibly some of those fall beyond that time period.
I would also say there is much to the saying rules for thee but not for me. Monied cliques daily get away with crimes the masses will be fined and incarcerated for doing. Doesn't make it right, just shows what rich men with a large contingent of armed men backed by courts can get away with.
the hilarious thing is when the "monied cliques" convince the rest of us that enforcing their self-serving-rules is a "moral issue"
We're simply never going to agree that it's ok to steal anothers work and present it as our own. So I'm going to bow out of any more back and forth on this. I think we both have a pretty good understanding on how the other feels about this and would simply be regurgitation of these positions at this point.
i honestly have no idea why you've selected the position you hold
you can write fan-fiction and ACCEPT VOLUNTARY TIPS
I feel like the goalposts are being moved here. Fan fiction is not publishing anothers work as your own. It is taking an idea and creating something new, which as you state can in fact be the recipient of tips. Amazon even allows one to sell it if it is under certain authors, which I assume means they have a deal with those authors.
i remember
years ago
hearing that "telegram" is used by bin-laden
and my response was - - "so what ?"
are you going to ban email because criminals use email ?
are you going to ban phones because criminals use phones ?
how is anyone going to resist totalitarian states when the state can ban you from discord or gmail or twitter or facebook or blurt (with the mere threat of "legal action")
IF YOU ONLY SUPPORT SPEECH YOU AGREE WITH ∴ YOU DON'T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH
I would never argue that copying someone elses writing or pictures or art etc and posting it as my own is free speech. Theft yes, free speech no.
Plagiarism can be mitigated in better ways without CENTRAL DOMINION...
I remember when Metalica wasn't well known, bootlegs of their music made them better known... then came Nabster... THEN Metalica went full DICK and sued fans who had been "Stealing" their music... : /
This SHIT about Blockchain and Plagiarism is more of this same BS...
No one Fucks the world up better than a group of FUCKS fixing the world for all of us!
STOP TRYING TO NANY THE BLOCKCHAIN!
"you can't steal words - you can't steal ideas" <<<- I plagiarized THAT!
I answer this in a post I just did so I won't keep repeating the same thoughts on multiple comments.
you can't steal words
you can't steal ideas
I disagree. If one spends many months or years writing a novel or series of novels, if i sell them as my own creation I've stolen from that person. If an artist makes a work of art and I sell it as my own, I've stolen that persons idea.
have you heard of giphy ?
I like this idea better than COAL….
The Blurt Optional Mute Button. (BOMB)
https://blurt.blog/ethics/@logiczombie/proposal-to-end-all-moderation-problems
The fault with that is two fold.
I don't need a mute feature forced on me. Anothers need for a mute might not be my own.
If content theft is taking place, muting does not mitigate the legal responsibility of a platform to not allow it. In fact, simply muting the content thief would likely result in making the platform more liable as they continue to allow the theft to continue being posted on their platform.
COAL is a good first step, but at some point the foundation running the front end (or others who run or plan on running a front end) will need to kick these thieves off their platforms to fully immunize themselves from legal jeopardy.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7166-section-230
section 230 makes the POSTER OF CONTENT (and NOT the site-host) solely responsible for any (valid or invalid) legal challenge that might materialize
I would cite in rebuttal the ruling against Napster many years ago to demonstrate a platform can indeed be found liable for the illegal sharing of others property.
Edited to add
Also the actions taken against the Silk Road guy.
Maybe people should not be allowed on the Internet... I would make THAT a Law!
That day is coming soon for many of us I have no doubt.
In the United States at least, it is legal [to record to VHS and copy and share]. You may record any TV program for your own use and you may also give physical copies of the recording away to other people. That last part may surprise a lot of readers but it is true. You just can’t charge money for the recording, you can’t share it as a digital file, and you can’t mass produce copies of it.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-still-legal-to-record-TV-with-a-VHS
"If users are not themselves infringing, then we are not liable for contributory infringement," Napster attorney Jonathan Schiller wrote in Napster's briefs relying on the Audio Home Recording Act.
it is perfectly legal to burn your cd's and make copies for your friends - as long as you don't SELL THEM.
the ruling against napster makes no sense.
there is no such thing as a "content thief"
ideas are not property
I think doing a cover of a song or painting someone else’s picture is one thing but actually taking that persons exact song or art and saying it’s yours is plagerism. It’s ok to say this person inspired me so I also tried singing / painting it etc
if i design a machine
like an engine
or a microscope
and i patent that design
after 20 years
ANYONE ANYWHERE CAN COPY THAT DESIGN AND PASS IT OFF AS THEIR OWN WITHOUT ASKING FOR PERMISSION
isn't designing an engine generally more difficult than writing a song ?
Sorry on my cats account lol 🤣
meow
Copying is differntly tonsharint the exact same photo. So if someone paints my art and makes 5 small changes they can do that. Screengrabbing my actual art and sayings it’s theirs they can’t
even after 20 years ?
If someone copy pastes anothers presentation and passes it off as their own, that is indeed theft of content.
Then you should not upvote that...
Think rationally...
How do you protect these ALL THESE Artists who are being ripped off?
Hmm?
(hint... you really cant)
This isn't about protecting the artists. Please read my recent post.
This closely parallel s the perilous intentions of the block. Plagiarism vs Terrorism.
One thing I will say is the lack of downvotes leads to healthy discussions like this one. Imagine if we all got downvoted now if we had a different opinion on what should happen 🤣
This entire post would be invisible with downvotes. Every comment, every thought would be censored.
Yeah hahahaha 🤣
yep
it's easy to imagine getting downvoted for asking why people are brainwashed into a perverse "corporate morality" that is fundamentally "anti-human"
decentralized mute lists should always be OPTIONAL
Opt in or Opt out.
a global mute list would be opt-out
individual user created lists would be opt-in
Nothing is forced on anybody. Everyone has a Choice. Opt in or Opt out… it’s Optional….
Super Post! Herzlichen Dank dafür!
Ich stimme mit allem mit dir überein.
So nice post on this topic! You have come with an excellent idea. And very regretting thing that a person has multiple accounts. Such people don't love our beloved community. They want to grab benefits only. Hope our developers and witnesses will consider deeply on this matter.
MAYBE THEY JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE TELLING THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND WHAT THEY CAN'T POST
It's always going to be a dicey thing to work towards uprooting irregularities in places like this. Having multiple accounts may not be considered an issue if it's limited to just 2 or let's say, 3. I mean, if an account holder is using these accounts properly to run excellent projects here, there won't be any complaint.
It becomes a problem when the said account goes into spamming and whatnot.
I also noticed from Discord and telegram that there seems to be a way for an already existing account holder to open an account for a new person. It's like a sort of sponsorship. We also get that option in sign-up interface when trying to open an account here.
Here is the big deal;
I haven't tried, but if I successfully use my account to open other accounts for people, would that also be seen as a multiple account?
Sounds like a no-brainer, but I can't help but imagine from the screenshot you displayed. It's possible that those accounts were opened for others.
Nice one though.
Yes, that's true. Multiple accounts are basically not a problem, as you described. I just couldn't think of a better name ;-)
My basic idea only refers to abuse-accounts, Sub-accounts created from these accounts are in most cases also for abusive purposes.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @r2cornell. Also, find us on Discord
Felicitaciones, su publication ha sido votado por @r2cornell. También, encuéntranos en Discord
You have expressed excellent idealistic thought in this post.
This picture looks so amazing
I'm glad you like the picture, me too ;-) It was an hour's work to merge the two pictures. The white wolf is supposed to represent the warden who watches over the ship (Blurt).
Gracias por compartir tu publicación en #Blurt. Tu esfuerzo significa mucho para nosotros; por eso has recibido un voto positivo.
Te invito a votar por @blurtlatam como Testigo / Witness
Fantastic idea! Can this be done without hardfork?
No, I don't think so. But that should not be an obstacle.
if wikileaks started a data dump to blurt
and the cia filed a lawsuit against blurt and or the blurt witnesses
how do you think that would play out ?
Probably not so great. But I also don't really know what consequences that would have for blurt.blog.
Yes, I think the automatic control option is a logical solution to run, because it would be very tiring and take a very long time if it had to be done manually. However, the automated system that is implemented really must be optimally regulated so that no one is harmed.
global moderation is always a bad idea
each individual should be able to choose who they can see - and who can see them
anarchy
This post is published on latest Blurt News post...
Follow us for more news..
So nice post sir!
You have explained the topic nicely and all should consider on your idea.
Same thing are doing people who delegated to voting bots, you have to stop these bots too
The new development is very good! Voting from the frontend is fully acceptable by me!
Hello sir how are you.your post is very nice. It is good platform for newcomers. I really appreciate your work. Thanks a lot
Stop complaining or you will be downvoted…. Woops, wrong place.
Hehe, yes - wrong chain :-)