PLEASE READ: Don't Kid Yourself - In its Own Way, Hive Censors! Yup, we have 'Hivewatchers'

6 comments-0 reblogs
avatar of @kevinnag58
LeoFinance Badge
7 months ago - 6 minutes read

Photo Source


About one month or so ago, I personally made a conscious decision to make better use of my time spent researching my articles by relying on the use of more quotations in my writing to make more research time available. As of right now, for a shorter article (400-600 words) I've published I spend between the research, structure and writing 3 to 4 hours. For longer articles (1000+ words) the normal time involved is 6+ hours - ROUTINELY!!!!

As a result of utilization of mostly quotations I found the number of likes to my articles increasing and correspondingly my writer awards were higher. Well, that was the case until yesterday when on four of my articles I received the following 'comment' from 'Hivewatchers':

Copying/Pasting content (full or partial texts, video links, art, etc.) with adding very little original content is frowned upon by the community. Publishing such content could be considered exploitation of the "Hive Reward Pool" and may result in the account being Blacklisted.

Please refrain from copying and pasting, or decline the rewards on those posts going forward.

If you believe this comment is in error, please contact us in #appeals in Discord.

[Hivewatchers. 2022 - The Second Great Stablecoin War. (Accessed October 31, 2022)].

For some unknown reason I am still having problems using Discord on my laptop. So, I did the next best thing and responded to the 'Hivewatchers' comment by replying the following:

I'm sorry but I disagree with your conclusion. A whole lot of time goes into 'researching' these articles - they are a scholarly endeavor on my part.

More importantly by pulling together and presenting these various sources into a single article performs a service for the community by providing a broader coverage of a subject without each individual member having to do the work themselves. I'd suggest you look at those who repeatedly support my work as they comprise some of the more notables within the Hive Community - they do not seem to have any problem with this.

All I am doing is basically writing a college research paper with each of my articles. Sorry you don't like it - but many do.

Nonetheless, plagarism is not an issue as everything bears a citation. You are attempting to censor my work which is a legitimate scholarly exercise I share with my readers. I do not believe such is the direction Hive wants to follow.

But you want a more original work. My friend - this response is just the beginning. Your threat of blacklisting is nothing more than attempted censorship, which I believe is frowned upon on this 'decentralized censorship free' blockchain.

I now invite you to correct me if I am wrong!

[Nagoda, K. 2022 - The Second Great Stablecoin War. (Accessed October 31, 2022)].

Then, some hours later, 'Hivewatchers' posted the following:


This type of copypasta posting is generally seen as an effortless posting with little original content added. It is also often seen as copypasta spam. It is recommended to have at least 50% of your own, original writing/thought added to the quoted text. Continuing to post such content could be considered an attempt to exploit the reward pool. It may cause the account to be added to the blacklist.

Alternatively, you could decline payouts on these posts.

Thank you

[Hivewatchers. 2022 - The Second Great Stablecoin War. (Accessed October 31, 2022)].

As I see it, Hivewatchers response added little and wholly failed to address the issues I raised in my response to them. So I responded to this as follows:

Again, I take your comment to task. You say this 'type of copypasta posting is generally seen as an effortless', without first asking anything about the work put into my articles. For a shorter article (400-600 words) the normal research, structure and writing times involve 3 to 4 hours. For longer articles (1000+ words) the normal time involved is 6+ hours - ROUTINELY!!!!

I find it very strange to compare the large number of downvotes you have received in your unveiled attempt to silence my work compared to the miniscule number of downvotes my work has received. If that alone does not tell you something I know of nothing else that will.

My work will continue as is but at the very beginning of each research article I will add a statement advising my readers of your attempted censorship and the unwarranted reasons therefore, and will tell the readers if they concur with you to not tip my article. But if they appreciate my efforts any tip they decide to leave will be appreciated.

Maybe you should review the ideals and goals behind the Hive blockchain as it seems you have forgotten exactly what decentralization and censorship free are. In any case, a truly decentralized entity such as Hive should not be leaving a decision to blacklist up to any one person or group of people.

Let's all remain vigilant and resist censorship of any sort on "OUR" blockchain!

[Nagoda, K. 2022 - The Second Great Stablecoin War. (Accessed October 31, 2022)].

To my response I received no written response from 'Hivewatchers'. But in reviewing my postings this morning their response became very evident. Four of my articles now displayed 0.00 award totals for HBD and HP awards. This was accomplished by the downvotes of three parties [adm, nanggroe1, and freebornsociety].

What is even more interesting, at least to me, is the amount of positive feedback and tips these articles garnered, with the sole negatives being voted by the above three (discounting the negative vote of xleo.voter, whom I believe is more of a negative vote against leo.voter). Nonetheless, and even more enlightening is the negative votes accumulated by 'Hivewatchers' on their second comment to my article - 35 negative votes.

My Position

While I could really get on my 'soapbox', I am just going to highlight my position in bullet form with self restricted comment.

  • In no way was my work an attempt to exploit the 'Hive Reward Pool'. Many hours of research and structuring went into the production of these articles. They are and always were intended to be scholarly endeavors aggregating the best available information on a topic and producing a cohesive end product for the convenience of the reader.

  • My work was accepted by a greater percentage of readers evidenced by the growth in positive votes (and increased rewards). Contrary to this fact, one party (or three combined) can basically enter this realm and effectively undo that which the majority of readers desired.

  • Basically, the comments posted by 'Hivewatchers' can be viewed as nothing more than a threat to blacklist unless I conform to their rules under their misconceived perceptions surrounding the nature of my work. Beyond that, the comments constitute censorship by restricting my consciously determined style of presenting information, and effecting the same by unilaterally revoking the positive rewards given by others to my work. Such power, it is submitted, runs contrary to Hive's claim to be a decentralized entity that is censorship free.

  • Hivewatcher's stated in one of their comments "It is recommended to have at least 50% of your own, original writing/thought added to the quoted text." Who recommended this? Is this a rule that is widely known? If Hivewatchers created this 'suggestion' under what authority did they do so? This is something everyone who supports Hive should be questioning.

  • If in fact it is acceptable to the users of Hive to have a small group of 'overseers' have the power to effect results such as imposed on me, Hive can no longer call itself decentralized and our beloved Hive becomes nothing more than a censored media site.

Going Forward

I have absolutely no intention of changing the service I am providing for the benefit of my readers. I will, however, add the following disclaimer to each of my articles:

This article is intended to be a presentation of many hours of research that went into aggregating the best information available on the topic. It is intended that this article is a compilation of the research presented in quoted form. As always, full citations will be provided.

This notice is included as a result of my work being questioned, and my past work punished by award reduction, by 'Hivewatchers'. Essentially, it is Hivewatchers position that my work is not original and is nothing more than an attempt to exploit the Hive Reward Pool. IF YOU AGREE WITH HIVEWATCHERS POSITION, PLEASE DO NOT UPVOTE THIS ARTICLE.

If however you have found my hours of work have provided you a convenient and full presentation on the topic, your upvote and tip will be greatly appreciated.

Let's all remain vigilant in protecting Hive from censorship by a small group of individuals.

If this small group of 'Hivewatchers' are permitted to continue attacking my work in light of the foregoing, I fear the end of Hive and its worthy ideals of decentralization and freedom from censorship. Please all, let's protect that which we have and fight abuse of its ideals to the hilt.

And finally, please note, I'm not 'pissy' about this due to the removal of my HBD and HP awards on those four articles. I admit I'm angered because I know the hours and hours of work that went into each. But here, what is at stake goes far beyond the loss of some awards, it goes to the heart of who we are and who we want to be here at Hive.

Enough said!!!!!!!!!

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta