Yes and what about when or if people didn't agree? Do they need a set of guidelines, do they have to establish rules and policies and community standards? How long before they have the same issues as Facebook? People will cheer them on when they do what you want, but that could change. Honestly I'd rather the platforms just be platforms and not publishers like Facebook has become and it's a slippery slope. Again I would love if they helped, but I can see it being just as much as problem as them not getting involved. It's the same reason that phone companies do not ban telemarketers from using their phone services.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Don't get me wrong. When I say ban, I don't mean ban in the same way that it would work on a centralized platform. Steemit doesn't have the power to ban anyone in that way, and that's why it could never become like Facebook or Youtube. What I mean is that on THEIR frontend, they could moderate content. This is actually the reason all accounts have upvotes and downvotes, as well as it being the purpose of them.
Because of the way Steem is distributed, there is an "untouchable" class of abusers, that effectively the community can't moderate. Only Steemit could. The EIP is created to help with this problem, but as I mentioned before, Steemit is the only set of accounts that could effectively fight this abuse in the current system or possibly even after the EIP. Banning in the same way as a centralized platform is currently impossible here, as it should be.
To me that just seems to be a function of Steem and in that way it is like an anarchy. I'd support it at least for moderating plagarism. The problem with moderation for like you know who, there really aren't any community guidelines