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
As one who enjoys others creation as much as you do I can say the same with you. You share many things from video, often from some show or movie. You do realize no company in their right mind would spend the money they do creating those things you enjoy if on release millions could then lay claim to its creation and begin selling it as their own work.
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.
I don't see it in quite the same light. The false Jan 6th narrative involves an acting job by the FBI to try to paint a picture of those who believe in the constitution and natural law as terrorists. The plagiarism issue is actually real, and as I pointed out in my post there are certain steps a platform must take to be immune using Safe Harbor guidelines. Which unfortunately I don't see the actions taken being enough for them to qualify, as they aren't preventing known culprits from continuing to post the stolen pictures and posts etc.
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 🤣
A better form of Discord needs to be built on top of BLURT here IMO...
OR
Just consider THIS form of communication better than Discord! ; )
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….