Daily Discussion No. 5: Addressing the Paid Upvote Bot Controversy - Calling a Spade a Spade
Welcome to another edition of "Daily Discussion," a community engagement initiative designed to stimulate more interaction on Steemit!
To learn more about the Daily Discussion initiative, please visit the Introductory Post for a full description and participation guidelines.
The Paid Upvote Bots... part 573-b-12A
Colorado landscape
So, clearly this is the "hot topic of the moment" around here. Are they "good," are they "bad," are they the savior for minnows or the evil that will destroy Steemit?
What do we DO about them? Outlaw them? Restrict their usage? Change the rewards structure? Change the curation rewards back to 50/50? Lots of options...
On my post yesterday "Are Upvote Bots Necessarily the Enemy of Quality Content?" there was some active discussion and in a comment @themarkymark observed:
Buying votes is like advertising, I run a few communities on Facebook and half the time I post I get a message not long after: "This post is doing better than 95% of other posts on this page. For $5 you can boost it to 3,200 people." In any medium, if you want to reach a greater audience you need advertising.
In essence, that is 100% true.
Calling a Spade a Spade: What if we Just Reclassify Posts with Purchased Upvotes?
Mountain sunset
I understand the value and importance of promoting yourself, as someone who has been in ecommerce for almost as long as it has existed. And I know that building a social media identity-- creating "Brand You"-- is all about marketing.
So let's call posts with purchased upvotes exactly what they are, then: PROMOTED CONTENT
Stick with me, here.
We even have a separate feed called "promoted" which-- last I checked-- is only being used by @zappl, not by anyone else. Why IS that?
I propose we add the super simple solution that at the moment someone buys an upvote, their content automatically vanishes from all other feeds, and is now listed only in the "promoted" feed. Because, in a sense, that's where it belongs... this is now self-promoted content.
That way, we don't have to curtail or outlaw any services... but we do remove ambiguity over which content is popular through "organic means" and which content is "paid for."
NOTE: I am only talking about the upvote services you PAY for here, not individual curators' curation bots.
This is just one more possibility I'm putting on the table for discussion.
What do YOU think? Would the Paid Upvote issue decline if any post with a paid upvote became classified as "promoted content?" Does this seem like a viable alternative solution, given that "promoted" is already a thing on Steemit? Leave a comment-- share your opinions and input-- be part of the conversation!
Have at it! I want to hear from you-- and others want to hear from you, as well! Share your thoughts and experiences below!
And remember... the purpose of the Daily Discussion initiative is to interact, and however little or large your contribution might be, it does matter! If you write an entire post as a response, remember to use the tag #dailydiscussion and include "Daily Discussion No. 5" as part of your title, then share a link to your post in the comment section!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Created at 171204 17:20 PDT
The reason there is such a strong market for the voting bots in my opinion is the lack of variety in the overall distribution of Steem.
We can tinker with the math again, but every time we do the money just flows to basically the same people..
I personally have no issue with people using the voting bots. On the other hand, I feel the community should get more used to using their own flags and adjusting rewards. We were given the tools to deal with all of this, but people are still afraid to use them.
The fact is that Steemit was intended from the get go, as evidenced by the mined stakes in the wallets of the founders, to be a vehicle for profits. Unsurprising, at worst.
In the current situation, those whom you imply should be flagged are utterly invulnerable to flagging. 10000 minnow votes cannot equal one whale vote.
Any minnow that flagged a whale would be ignored, and laughed at. Should the minnow have a group that presented an actual financial impediment to profiteering, I have no doubt that minnow - and each and every one of the group - would be flagged into invisibility.
The mathematical analysis of VP on Steemit demonstrates that flagging whales isn't a viable option.
There are 38 whales on Steemit. There are probably 50k users. Those 38 whales control more SP than the rest of the platform combined, and all of them mined their stakes.
I cannot expect them to voluntarily disempower themselves, nor is there power sufficient to do so elsewhere.
The solution? Competition. Steemit might be transformed into a platform potentiating fair distribution of money, but that is perhaps the least likely proposition I can envision. Another platform, intended to do so from the outset, is likely - extremely probable - to arise, and soonish.
I believe that is the realistic future of free speech, Steemit, and cryptocurrency.
Thanks!
@valued-customer, I would certainly not expect the largest stakeholders to disempower themselves, but I might expect them to "choose wisely," where "wisely" means taking actions that support the growth of the wealth they have, rather than the decay of it through short term selfishness.
By all means, lease out your SteemPower for profit, but lease it to active manual curators who will work towards creating value for the platform... rather than to sketching paid upvote bots that largely result in an ocean of valueless content... ultimately subtracting value from the platform.
But people do tend to think short term... it seems part and parcel of being human. Personally? I'd MUCH rather than "guaranteed income for life" than "$100,000 right NOW." Most people, however, would take the $100K.
Cash is king.
Your observation that Steemit whales aren't seasoned investors is apropros here, as well.
Thanks!
Competition is always good!
I would agree that there is probably no perfect solution.
I have no issue with people purchasing upvotes for their own posts, either. But I also think it would lend a certain "truth in advertising" if we call that what it is: Self-Advertising/Promotion. Same thing happens on Facebook or twitter... if you PAID to make your post more visible, there will be a line that reads "Promoted Content."
And yes, people should get more comfortable with flags... I don't have that much SP, but I do flag stuff-- specially spammy "upvote farm" comments.
The problem with paid upvotes is that they are better than promoted posts, so people prefer them. But, the money goes to the providers of the upvote service, creating a pretty classic "rich get richer" thing where there's a poor allocation of rewards.
There's nothing wrong with the rich getting richer necessarily, but, as steemians I don't think we want to allocate our rewards to vote bots. Personally I want to avoid letting any of my allocations go there.
... at the expense of everyone else. - Yes, that is a fucking problem, and is what's happening on Steemit right now
... while everyone else does too. - You're right. Wish we could find a way to make that happen.
After a couple days focusing on @blocktrades recent post regarding curation, I have concluded his proposal will make his, and other's, mined stakes vastly more profitable.
Now, can I blame him for wanting to be more profitable? Of course not! Should I expect him to devote all his blood and treasure to altruistically making the rest of us rich? NO.
However, we do have complete responsibility for preventing predatory profiteers from extracting our wealth, as individuals, and as a community. @blocktrades doesn't. He already has mined his stake, and has a different purpose, as different as is his stake.
Thanks!
Again, I harbor neither delusions nor desires that someone like @blocktrades should launch himself into altruism.
What I DO expect is a degree of due diligence in terms of exercising financial wisdom. I expect someone who has $5m to look at that and think "How can I best support this investment so I have $10m two years from now?" Well, best way to do that is probably to take supporting actions that will help double the price of the Steem token...
One of the challenges we face here is that for many of our esteemed pre-mining rich whales this is the first time they have had "a lot of money." This isn't necessarily "smart money" sitting at the top of the pyramid... I expect much of it is more like "lottery winnings" and lottery winners are notorious for frittering away their winnings and ending up dead broke at the end of five years.
One of the positives (a small one) I got out of the blocktrades post was that he DOES have a longer term perspective in mind... and that's my issue, too. I am just not that concerned about my payout on THIS post... I'm concerned about there being a place-- 5 years from now-- where I can still post and perhaps earn a reward (or perhaps not).
But it often feels like I am in a tiny minority, with that kind of thinking...
Very good insight!
I know it. But, I always have been, and often a minority of one. At least a lot of folks are in agreement that there are problems that need fixing. I'm not getting a consensus of agreement with your epiphany that paid votes are advertising - despite that many bot owners say this themselves - I think mostly because people don't want to end up in the promotion feed, and want to buy votes.
Again, long term strategic thinking...
Matt, totally agree. And part of my issue is that you have some of the biggest whales delegating SP (which is a fine enough idea) to others who then create upvote services with ZERO discernment... which then ends up putting crap content on the same level as well produced, researched content.
I have nothing against the rich getting richer... it's HOW they are getting richer. The "big whales" could just as easily rent their 100,000SP block delegations to a known active manual curator as to a spam farmer running a shady upvote service. That's where my issue really is.
Awesome idea!
Unfortunately, the idea is gonna ruffle the feathers of some folks who don't want to lose the cash.
The other problem is properly identifying the voting bots.
It's not like we have an official bot registry (I'm working on that) to track the bots.
It will ruffle some feathers, sure... but mostly the ones who see Steemit as an opportunity to get "money for nothing." And I'm only talking about the "paid upvote" bots here... not individual people's curation bots.
And yes, there would need to be some kind of "upvote service registry" which could be a "community watch" effort... there are enough content creators here who sick and tired of this stuff.
Been working on this for awhile and right now is a good a time as any to release this project:
https://steemit.com/bots/@bot-or-not/bot-or-not-a-modest-proposal
Re-steem if you like!
I like this idea. A lot. I think content needs to stand on its own merits, not how big a pocket its author has.
The only loophole would be someone using one of their socks to do the paid upvoting.
Honestly, as this debate about bots goes on, I'm getting closer and closer to adopting a position that we should ban all non-human actors from the blockchain. Sure, we'll lose some good services, but it might just be worth it to rid the system of the scourge of using bots to scam the rewards pool.
There's no perfect solution, but I think the idea merits exploration.
We're all about "freedom" and "no censorship." Fine. So let people do as they want with their paid upvotes. But if you DO pay to upvote your content... that ADVERTISING. That's increasing your visibility... entirely your right! But now your content just became reclassified as "Promoted Content" and will go into the feed accordingly. Just like it would if you paid for visibility on Google, Facebook, twitter or anywhere else.
"But people won't look at my post if it's promoted!"
Well, tough titties. The create some content that will stand on its own merit, OR be socially interactive enough that people visit your content.
I guess I am just anti- gimmicks and manipulation... and since one of the primary "selling points" of the entire blockchain industry is "transparency" I'll be damned if I'm going to support systems based on deception, exploitation and manipulation.
agreed, totally. (is that, technically, a reality, though?- (I'm no techy)
The only way would be to implement a random 'captcha' image test, I guess.
i had this chat with someone - forgive me if i get this tottaly wrong - but - the blockchain - not steemit - cannot differentiate - and the bots do not need to use steemit (or something lol)
hope that makes some kind of sense..
Yeah a captcha would have to be built into the blockchain somehow. I'm not sure how possible that would be, given the blockchain, which is transparent, would have to store the correct answer to the captcha. Unless it utilises a third party.
Yup! @revo is right here in his appreciation @lucylin.
Actually, I've already commented long and hard about this same issue on other post out there from @blocktrades where I explained a few things a bit. }:)
On @blocktrades recent post, a veritable storm of ferment and comment arose. @leotrap asked @timcliff if a post couldn't contain an 'authenticator'.
Basically, enabling public key encryption between the post and blockchain, in which the key was only accessible on the post, provided in a way bots could not access but people could, will end bots ability to vote.
@timcliff said that @netuoso claimed captchas won't work, and sux0rz.
I paraphrase. The conversation can be found here.
Ending bots is a financial threat to every substantial stakeholder's profits on Steemit. I do not expect them to agree to do it. @ned publicly endorsed @blocktrades proposal, which would make votebots vastly more profitable.
I sorta feel like I am watching a friend die slowly...
How so?
In as simple terms a possible! lol
(sorry, I really am a techy dunce - I put my hat on everyday, with a big 'D' on it, as I sit down to my computer..)
Rather than seeing it as friend die slowly, maybe see it as a withering plant, with the shoots of something bigger and better coming along...
(that's my best optimistic speech I can muster, without several coffees..)
All delegations, all votebots, all paid votes, etc., come from those stakes. All profits go to their wallets.
Without bots, there aren't many ways to profit from SP, yet. I believe that's because the ease with which bots enabled profit has precluded alternatives from being explored and developed.
Since no other profitable enterprises have been explored, stopping bots is a threat to profitable enterprise, and all those enterprises are staked by the largest stakeholders.
That sounds like a fine idea to me. After all, even on Google, sites which have paid for their ranking are clearly identified as such. Why not on Steemit?
That's pretty much what I had in mind.
Steemit is all about "freedom," so this impinges on nobody's freedom... it just looks at certain types of activity and then "categorizes" it. Which seems fair to me. In a newspaper or magazine, it's also clear what's real content and what's promoted content.
Carlgnash explains why upvote bots are bad for steem in this interview I did with him last Tuesday.
I've used them in the past but that was when I was new. :) UpVote bots essentially make whales richer while promoting crap is how I kind of look at it.
I've been listening in, in the background, and @carlgnash is pretty much making the same observations about this whole ball of wax...
In the end, it all amounts to whether these services are "killing the goose that lays golden eggs."
I've been doing "content-for-rewards" sites for almost 20 years... and 99% of them go TU because there's just not adequate thoughts given to the idea that short term profiteering kills long term prospects. But humans tend to be GREEDY and SELF-oriented... and training people to the idea that "$100 a month FOR LIFE" is actually more money than "$1000, right now!" tends to be an uphill battle.
Exactly! It is all about changing that short term mindset of steemians.
These questions are all good. I personally do not have a clue as to what should be done. I do however have to hope that I can avoid the pit falls that may bring steemit down in it goals. Change is one thing that is inevitable. Finding the best way to go is always going to have a choice. Love for steemit
Different approaches, I suppose. For me, I look at what's good for Steemit, because if Steemit does well and grows, then I benefit. But some only looks at how Steemit can benefit THEM.
I am no techy. I have enjoyed steemit for reasons that I hope many have. I like the open minded thinking that went into the development of steemit. I am sure that it has evolved since conception. With the rise of issues either, good, bad or indifferent there will always be compromise, and change.
Humans give feed back.
Bots are not human
I am not sure but I came into this think what do I have to offer. Someone told me I had knowledge.
I try to make quality post. Some times I fail, other times I do good, I know I can get better. Community first is the moto.
Truth in advertising. While this isn't a solution to the problems of the free world, it is at least honest.
I fully support it.
Thanks!
Edit: I have made a post regarding this matter.
steemit claims to be a social media.
not bumper cars or demolition derby.
DESTROY ALL BOTS
It can be done. Here's how.
I read it when it was posted.
pretty much TL;DR...but I struggled on.
I didn't understand it.
Basically each post sends a key to the blockchain, which people can get from the post, and bots can't. That key is necessary to vote.
Bots can't vote. People only.
sounds like a good plan.
I'm all for it.
I have no problem with Bots as long as they don't vote, comment or flag.
Yep. I only have problems with my tools when they try to vote, comment, or otherwise get uppity.
damn right.
I don't want a circular saw taking it into it's own mind to do what it wants to do.
or a router or a hammer.
Tools..all my tools...should do WHAT I want them to do..and WHEN I want them to do it.
and not nag about it.
I fricking HATE 'fasten your seat belt' beepers and automatic electric door lock in cars.
I particularly hate it when they lie to you.
"Your door is a jar."
Bullshit! It's clearly a door.
I recognize that's your consistent stance...
Mine is "Bots should be an admin tool only." Cheetah, spaminators, steemcleaners, those kinds of things are fine. Someone using a bot to fetch a "reading list" for a manual curation group? Fine. Anything else just takes the "social" out of social. Which leaves... pretty much nothing.
Right...bots should NOT vote or flag.
But how are you going to stop them from doing so?
If person can make a 'vote bot' then another person can make a "flag all bots..bot"
where's it gonna end?
....could this be circumnavigated by posting as 'comments' - on another's post?
Yes. Comments aren't in the feed. If commenters use bots to upvote their comments, sticking the post - if the author didn't use bots - in the 'promoted' feed would be unfair.
It would work, however, as authors would quickly demand that commenters NOT use bots to upvote their comments, and probably flag such comments into the dirt, with plenty of backup.
Fair or not, I reckon any post, including comments, which contained a paid upvote, being included in the 'promoted' feed, would at least separate them from organic, curated, content.
Edit: as that flagging would remove the promotional vector, I reckon posts that did flag paid vote comments to zero should be removed from 'promoted', and restored to the ordinary feed.
More positive feedback to limit paid promotion.
I don't have enough technical savvy to know how "intelligent" bots can be programmed...