You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voting-bots are not (inherently) bad
I used to use bots and after running the numbers and such... well. In total (because I wrote a post about it) around 200-300 of my steempower has come from bot services that I paid my vote to. I have around 1600 SP (Thank you steemstem! and curie) and you know what, life is easier without using voting bots.
I completely understand the idea presented of "I am the little guy and nobody will ever see my post if I don't buy the votes" but you will eventually come to a realization that many others come to. I kind of have to admit that @trumpman kicked my ass on this subject and made me realize it. Anyways the only person whom wins when it comes to a bot is the person whom controls the bot, and in some cases the delegators.
The thing is, I don't envy them for it. They provide a service and customers pay for it, so they profit. I'm fine with that.
As I stated many times in the past: I'm extremely happy about the support I got from steemstem/curie so far, but I can't always rely on this and without support, posts will fade into oblivion, regardless how well written they are. You could have the next Steven King here - if there is no support, he will not be recognized and eventually leave.
The extreme antipathy towards bots is, imho, mainly explained by the fact, that people profit from it.
But don't you think that it's good, if people get more attention?
people get less attention though. If I see a post has a bunch of bidbots on it, I am less likely to upvote it... Actually all high valued posts I tend to avoid reading and voting on altogether if I can help it because a majority of them I find are crap. Thats me, a minnow, that avoids those posts, you know who else avoids those posts? Whales, dolphins, pretty much everyone. The reason is because unless you see a lot of people reposting it, its likely not that good and yo know what, getting reposted by a whale like Bernie, Transisto, etc or dolphins like steemstem will do way way more for exposure than any bidbot could give you. As well, higher valued posts opens you up to scrutiny and that means flags, so unless your post is good, like really good then a bid bot has a potential to decrease your rep. The one argument that I can make for bidbots is the rep potential if you do have a really good post.
Exactly, because most of them are crap. But what, if they weren't anymore? Would you change accordingly?
You are probably right about this. But yet again: You have to rely on the mercy of these dolphins/whales - if they ignore it, you will not achieve anything, no matter how good your post is. The bots enable you, to be more independent, don't you think?
But take a look at this post - it bought the position it finds itself in, but quite a few people are engaging regardless and the author gets way more followers because of it. This is some kind of exposure, money can buy - it's all about advertising your own content and to catch people's attention. You are don't have to rely on luck and that a big account gives you a decent upvote - thus, you are more independent.
True. Personally, I think it's a childish behaviour to flag a post, as long as it's not spam/plagiarism. We don't have to like everything other people do. I think, it's alright to let people just be.
I really try to understand the harm in pushing useful, well written posts. Sure, the bot owners are getting richer, human curators don't earn that much anymore - but in comparison you may be able to reach way more people and provide some useful knowledge. Is this really such a bad thing?
So this is where I will redirect you to the steem white paper section of Subjective Contributions subsection of Voting on Distribution of Currency and then the subsection of that labeled Voting Abuse.
In here you will find the following:
Bid bots would be counted in the defecting large stakeholders and as such is getting groups that are actively putting pressure on them. Eventually that straw is going break and the flag war going on against Haejin will be tiny and minuscule against the War Against the Machines.
Yes that is a terminator reference
Anyways references aside, I can name (off the top of my head) multiple groups and or large stakeholders which are actively pressuring bot owners, flagging bot curated content, and more. I mean the alternative is that manual curation groups cease from existing.
I liked that reference :D
Anyway. Currently I don't see a way of getting rid of the bots, because they have way too much power by now. It seems to be an idealistic approach to flag all bot-curated content to prevent this - because there is just too much of it.
I'm still interested about an answer, how small accounts get enough attention without bots or the mercy of whales. This is something, which seems to be the most important use case for bots.
That is actually something really interesting that I want to point out. here is a post by Justtryme90, one of the steemstem creators, made 2 years ago that answers your question. That being said, I am not certain if bots were as rampant back then as they are now.
People with good content stops buying bids and flags the bad content then the people making the bad content will stop buying votes as it won't be profitable anymore. When nobody buys votes, bots will nolonger be paying the people whom delegate to them. When this happens then people stop delegating and bots lose their power.
I mean sure they will still have power but since all the large bidbots have most of their power through delegations (which aren't cheap) so instead people will choose other paths. Curation trails might be big again or maybe they will have passed for the next tech.
He wrote:
I think, that's naive. Two years ago, it was easier as well. As I wrote in my article: we're living in an attention-economy and to attract attention you need exposure. Especially now, with so many new poeple around, you will need help to be visible - no matter how good your content is.
This is idealism. Most likey, it is not going to happen - the advantages a bot can give, are way too big: more visibility, more follower, more engagement.
I see your point, sure it would be cool, if those weren't needed, but the current situation encourages this behaviour. Even with a few hundred people and some big accounts - you will not be able to change it. The sheer numbers are against you.
Btw: Thanks for a constructive discussion :)
The next Steven king won't publish his book here. This is a blogging platform in case you don't get it. And our antipathy is not because people profit. It's because bots fuck up the platform, go against one of the fundamental principles it's built on (curation rewards) and mess even more the already imbalanced balance of the ecosystem.
If it's against a fundamental principle, don't you think, there would have been a way to prevent this? And if yes, why wasn't it done?
Edit: Ignore, for a moment, the whole money thing. In the first place, Steemit is a place where you can earn points by posting and engaging with content. Now people are using these points, to buy more attention and it's all happening inside a closed ecosystem. You don't lose anything except your time in doing so. The points are worth nothing outside of the system (it's not the case, but just imagine) - would you still be as angry about it and why?
It's merely a game people are playing, some win, others lose and some are in between - where's the damage?
Sure, there's is money involved right now, but there's still the possibility that cryptos are dying and then you'll only have your points inside a closed ecosystem. Most likely, most of the bots would vanish as well. And again you'll only have lost your time.
Steemit has some unique advantages in comparison to other platforms - money is, in my opinion, the least of those - because until you cash out, you can't buy anything with it.
The funny thing is you tell me to ignore money while you are the one mentioning the monetary factor again and again and again. It's clear to me that your only goal here is to make money, maybe I am wrong though. I am also here for that but I have come to enjoy and love this place. Your arguments can be summarised to "I know it's wrong, other people do the same to a worse degree or do other bad things so I what I am doing is okeyish". The funny thing is you also said you might not buy votes for steemstem posts which also makes you a coward that is too afraid to defend his opinion. Are you afraid you might lose all that juicy steemstem votes that allow you in the first place to buy bot votes now that you know some of us don't like them? Hypocrite!
Overall, imo you do more bad here than good. So since I like this place I will do the same to what I do to people that I think are here to take more than they give. Totally ignore you from now on.
I'm amazed of how you completely missed all of my points. But alright, I guess it's pointless to argue further.
I missed your points into the particular comment I answered in purpose. Revealing your hypocrisy was more than enough.
Sorry, but I don't have the time to answer to logical phallacies, cheap excuses, hypothetical scenarios and of course all the twisting of the words you have done in this thread.
You didn't "reveal" anything. I wrote quite openly about what I'm doing or going to do - you didn't do anything to uncover a hidden truth. Don't make yourself smarter than you are.
I could have never written this post, but I did because I wanted to start a discussion and see different opinions. And there were indeed quite a few which made me think. But you were not among them. You displayed an incredible amount of anger and an emotional style of debating which I despise.
I was hoping for a rational approach, without ad hominem arguments, but apparently you are not able to do it.
I tried the whole time to understand your anger, to response in a respectful manner, but you behave yourself in an incredibly rude way. I don't know what you are trying to achieve, it makes your arguments look weaker, not stronger.
I'm not sure, if you ever had a serious debate, but judging from my experience, it's more likely to convince other people in staying reasonable and analytical instead of insulting them.
In real life I used to laugh about people, who are getting angry all the time - no matter how valid their points are. Sometimes it's sad, because I think, they would be able to behave otherwise, thus make it more likely to convince others.
You call me a hypocrite? Alright, go for it, but if you really cared so much about this platform as you claim to do, you would try to convince people instead of offending them.
I think, you could achieve so much more and you probably don't care a bit about what I'm trying to tell you, but that's alright. I can walk away with a smile, can you? :)
Somebody else DMed me about your post otherwise I wouldn't bother. Again with all that "you so angry" shit? Well, ok then here have a flag dipshit. Reason: you are a self righteous prick as your nickname suggests. + Now the you so angry argument will actually make sense.