Mainly quoted text, which requires considerable reading in order to post that content? You know, like any other blog or research article might require in order to share information about a particular topic when you want to provide evidence that supports your hypothesis on a particular argument?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Then decline rewards, it's not news that original content is rewarded here. Can just send rewards to hive.fund if he wants to receive L2 rewards, they can reward quoted text if they like.
So you're implying that the time and effort put into content creation by @ura-soul is not as good as the time and effort that you or anyone else puts into an article- simply based on the fact that he used quotes?
I agree with your right to have an opinion and to disagree with what is valuable content. What I don't agree with your choice to throw around your "stake" to outright censor (i.e. downvote content to 0) simply because you have a difference in opinion about how an actual human wrote actual content.
Did you consider this aspect: If a reader was not aware of the links / references that @ura-soul provided in the article before reading his post, that's called value creation - whether he quoted the whole article or 3 words. This blog provided an introduction to the content, whether original or not. Hive enforces against plagiarism (because that's the right thing to do), not when someone openly sources and quotes from an article. Never has there been a requirement for original content in order to accept rewards. I'm certain that I can scroll through countless 2018, 2019, and probably 2020 blog posts where articles with full quotes were highly rewarded.
The underlying problem seems to be Hive's enablement of bots and voting trails. Perhaps if we forced humans to place actual votes, we wouldn't be having this argument. The counter-argument (pro-bots/voting trails) always seemed weak to me: "But then the people building on the blockchain will have less time to focus on their projects if they're manually voting on content." ... Well, that's actually fine. Once their projects are built, they will either succeed or fail based on the community's opinion about their project. If they're building something for free, then that is there choice - to "decline rewards". Everyone should be allowed to make that decision on their own. Also, in today's Hive, there are numerous monetization opportunities available for devs (as opposed to the limited opportunities provided from SteemIt Inc & Ned). I think it's time that we consider removing voting trails from the Hive code to prevent gaming of Hive rewards. Maybe then we'll get the broader mainstream adoption that we've all been working towards since inception.
Another thought .. was @ura-soul posting 5x/day and exploiting the voting trail process? No. So why 0-out multiple articles that have original content? This feels like a personal vendetta more than simply focusing on a single blog post filled only with quotes.
There are plenty of other folks exploiting the Hive rewards system but it doesn't seem like those are getting as much HUMAN attention. The powers that be in Hive leave bots to clean up after the bots.. how equitable. The obvious solution is to remove all bots, but this approach has been ignored for years by witnesses and those with the largest stake.
Perhaps it's time to have the conversation again - ban bots. ban voting trails. Then we can all focus on content and build community ... as opposed to bots building communities for us humans...