Recently, ferment over paid upvotes, self votes, and bots has increased to a fever pitch, as the concentration of wealth on Steemit has increased to unprecedented levels. Steemit's GINI, a ratio of the wealthy to the not wealthy, of wealth disparity, is worse than any nation on Earth, and continues to get worse.
@denmarkguy's epiphany and his post regarding the difference between curation and promotion is the direct cause of my post.
Curation rewards are a primary vehicle for substantial stakeholders to profit from their stakes. Another is selling their upvotes, directly, as @snowflake has discussed forthrightly (thanks for your integrity!), via delegation (typically used to fund votebots, selfvote, or sell votes directly), or directly funding votebots. Examples of these latter methods abound.
Curation is the practice of upvoting quality posts. Since this is the mechanism which causes quality content to increase relative to shitposts, it is the essential mechanism that drives price appreciation in Steem.
Promotion is paying to be seen, advertising. It does not improve quality, and does not increase the price of Steem. There is also the rise of paid flaggots. @bloom openly describes himself as a 'professional flagger' on his about me blurb. This is simply paid censorship, and downvotes applied to posts and comments that are not demonstrably to prevent spam, scams, and plagiarism, all are propaganda, and censorship, and I encourage a discussion about how to handle censorship and propaganda to begin on Steemit.
Paying for upvotes is advertising, not curation. Since it is impossible to differentiate between paid automated upvotes and pro bono automated upvotes, and they have identical affect on quality, all automated upvotes are advertising, as are all paid and self votes simply promotion. Neither any paid vote, nor any automated vote, nor any self vote, is curation.
Promotion is not curation. Curation rewards are not applicable to automated, self, or paid upvotes. Propaganda and censorship need to be precluded if free speech is to survive on Steemit. Bullshit about 'returning rewards to the pool' is just that: bullshit, @berniesanders (I'm tagging you here not to draw your flag, but because I value your thoughts. I want to hear what you have to say, and I believe you are competent to say it without silencing me. If not, you speak louder about your own confidence in your position than mine).
All posts, including comments, promoted via automated, self, and paid upvotes belong in the 'Promoted' feed, and nowhere else. Authors who flag promoted comments to $0 should be eligible to leave the promoted feed.
This Saturday, December 9th, 2017, a Steem panel will discuss matters which include these. I strongly encourage all Steemers with an opinion on these matters to attend. Participants will include influential Steemers, like @aggroed, @jesta, @timcliff, @blocktrades, @pharesim, @lukestokes, @elear, and @andrarchy
Lastly, for those of you that want bots gone, there is a way this can be done, that I only discovered yesterday, after long contemplation and many questions. @leotrap proposed a method of doing so on @blocktrades recent post on changing curation rewards to improve the profitability of curation, which you can read here.
It is claimed that captchas don't work, and there is certainly some truth to that. However they are proved to dramatically decrease bots, spam, and undesirable automated content, and are widely, and effectively, used across the internet.
Let me know what you think of these ideas: relegating advertising to the promoted feed, killing all bots, and preventing censorship and propaganda on Steemit.
Thanks!
Au contraire. The difficulty of distinction does not mean there is a lack of distinction so your conclusion that "all automated upvotes are advertising" does not follow.
The bots don't use steemit.com, so a captcha will do nothing, literally nothing, to stop bots, it will just annoy people here and potentially invading their privacy, depending on the captcha service used. I'm trying to figure out a way to have a similar effect in a limited sphere but to the best of my knowledge (and my extensive research) there is no solution for this. I would be very happy to be corrected on this point.
I'm not going to touch the censorship claims except to reiterate my position that flags are not censorship.
While I completely agree that lack of ability to distinguish between things doesn't equate to lack of difference, I yet point out that, regardless of whether or not we can distinguish between paid and unpaid autovotes, they both affect quality identically, which is to say, not at all.
A significant philosophical argument against votebots is that the appreciation of quality people apply in curation is not undertaken at all by extant bots. This results in the posts being upvoted by bots very different from those upvoted by human curators. It is incontrovertible that this is the case, and if there is consensus on any issue on Steemit, that is probably it.
There is a great deal of discussion, and a great many ways to change this, that can be essayed. Presently, however, I am aware of few that argue that votebots do push authors to produce quality posts. @markymark has pointed out instead that he can't be expected to police his bots clients. The thin margin of the industry precludes it.
Since you didn't follow the link to the conversation on @blocktrades recent post on making curation more profitable, in which @leotrap proposes including an 'authenticator' on posts, I will summarize here. The blockchain can be delivered a private key when a post is made. Votes on the post can then be required to possess a public key, just as votes you make require your personal key, or password.
A mechanism on the post itself can be used to provide the key, such as a captcha, which excludes bots while allowing people to gain the key. In this way bots can be prevented from voting, just as random people without a relevant password/key are prevented from voting.
Regarding censorship, making posts and comments invisible is censorship. There are degrees of censorship, from censorship with extreme prejudice, such as murder, to being demonetized on Youtool. While there are almost always ways to get the censored information, even from the dead, the fact that the blockchain still contains the information does not mean it isn't censored on Steemit.
@skeptic is now self-censoring the posts he makes in order to preclude being nuked - again - into negative rep. While very few would disagree that some of his posts were highly offensive, and that at least some of the flags were appropriate, he can tell you from his wealth of experience that being flagged into negative rep did indeed largely silence his voice, and that he now self-censors in order to prevent it happening again.
It is hard to understand, in that context, your position that flagging isn't censorship. It clearly is.
I always appreciate your insightful criticism. It is only through criticism that I am enabled to learn I am wrong, to change my mind, and become right.
Thanks!
Quality is inherent in a post, but subjectively evaluated. I can set my bot for example to vote for stuff that loosely fits my own quality ideals. It will be like me voting while operating at the brain capacity of a massive hangover, but it is not promotion, and the judgement is not irrespective of quality.
@denmarkguy made a good central point which I think you have failed to expand from just applying to pay4vote services to applying to all bots. That not all bots have any intelligence does not mean that some bots do not have some amount. Central to his argument too was the fact that pay4vote often (maybe nearly always, I don't have the data) goes back to the person paying for the vote, so it is an indirect self vote, which is best understood as promotion. I know this is a controversial topic we could get lost in, but to bring it back to point, using a bot does not necessarily make it promotion which is your assertion.
My apologies on not following the link, I saw it was an article I've already read with great interest several times, I didn't realize it was a comment you were linking to. I've read it now and I'm caught up.
However there is nothing there, and @netuoso is not even correct enough, it's shot down way easier than using Amazon's Mechanical Turk for a few months. Where it fails is "a mechanism on the post itself". What is this mechanism? How can it be a captcha, when posts are just text? So is it a link? If it is a link that goes to another site then that makes the blockchain dependent on that site to operate votes. And if people want to opt out / not use the captcha, do they still have to use a key? Do they just include it in the post? It is not implementable, never mind defeatible.
Making posts and comments less visible (they do not become invisible, even on steemit.com) is not censorship, it is deprioritizing them in the interface. It's not censorship to have to click again to reveal the contents of a post and it's images. If it were, then having to accept a terms and conditions page is censorship. It amounts to filtering of something which the community has decided is not valuable, literally not valued.
Side note but personally, and I've said this before, I think posts should be color coded instead of reduced in visibility, and that you'd be able to filter out posts that had low or negative rewards, but only by choice. It would be cool too because if you're the kind of person who likes to look out for posts which may have been down voted but that you might support, it would help you find them.
So we note that reducing post visibility is the consequence of negative rewards, it's all about the rewards. steemit.com chooses (they don't have to) reduce visibility and filter posts with negative pending paying. In the case of @skeptic the causality was largely economic, it was the same for @noganoo. They found out that what they posted was not valued by the community. I don't believe the reduced visibility was the clincher, although it no doubt played a part, but when you are not getting rewards for your posts you sit up and take notice. Now, I know that it was largely the actions of a few whales here that flagged him so much, hence the quotes, but conversely it's largely by the actions of whales that some posts get highly rewarded. I've argued for improvements to this, as have you, so I'm just stating the facts here.
They have to "self-censor", if you want to call it that, as it's the only way to be accepted by this community. A better way to think about it is them discovering what works here, what are people interested in discussing and what will they not tolerate. You can bet that @skeptic in particular is not censoring himself on other sites, if I remember correctly he went to another site with mind in the name and continued much as he had been here.
Thanks also for the discussion, as always.
I would prefer if it bots identified themselves as bots and humans identified themselves as humans.
Once that occurs, then humans can make an informed decision as to what needs to be done.
Can you think of a reason they might want to do that? I can think of plenty of reasons they wouldn't want that.
We don't need the permission of bots to decide what to do. People running bots can contribute valuably to the discussion, but their bots are incapable of it.
Bots can contribute to a discussion.
Bots are capable of identifying plagiarism.
I would say that adds value.
Bots are capable of almost anything a programmer desires.
I'd bet a bot could be programmed to identify bots, which could be quite useful!
While I completely agree that bots can be very useful, and perhaps are the penultimate expression of utility, which tool technology, from chipped rocks, to fire, to, now robots, has continually improved in utility, they aren't people.
They are just tools. While there may come a day when bots are more than mere tools, today, thank God, is not yet that day, and even such contributions they make to conversations are of but limited entertainment value.
All of the beneficial uses of bots exclude being accorded the rights and value of people. I can think of dozens, and more, uses of bots on Steemit I fully support. Not curating content, not voting, and not pretending to be people.
How many bots are there?
How many bots are "abusive"?
How many bots are " useful"?
Until this is known, we won't even know what we're dealing with.
Can they be identified and classified?
I believe a good start is to provide a way for humans to identify"bottish" actions of an account, then let humans decide what to do about them.
I don't advocate giving bots right (and I never have), but I do believe humans have the right to run bots.
When and if it is decided that the operations of an account are abusive, then the account can be hammered to oblivion.
I fully agree that people have a right to use tools - particularly tools they make their very own self, as many bot owners do.
I cannot agree I need to know how many bots there are - I don't care. As to whether they are good or bad, well that is determined by how they are used.
I submit that bots voting is bad. I'm 'agin it. I submit on philosophical and political grounds that potentiating bots to vote degrades human agency, and will lead down a slippery slope to places no rational person want to end up.
I personally feel that bots writing posts and comments is bad, but I'm not necessarily certain it's intolerable. Just as having a drone go to the store and pick up my groceries is a beneficial use of a bot, I might be persuaded that having a bot speak my mind for me could be a good thing. I'm far less convinced letting bots be programmed to promote or suppress viewpoints is safe. There's room for discussion there, and I'd like to have it before bots can write well.
As long as bots are tools people use, I think they're fine. When they become stand-ins for people, as in writing posts, or equal to people, as in voting, I reckon they're abusive.
We don't need to enumerate them. We can prevent them from interacting with the blockchain to vote, and post, and we should.
You seem to think we shouldn't. Why shouldn't we?
"We can prevent them from interacting with the blockchain to vote, and post, and we should."
There's the rub...
The genie is already out of the bottle. Bots are already voting, posting and curating.
How do you propose we stop account holders from running bots that interact with the blockchain?
Ummm, ban all the things isn't my first approach. Also, the major cause of the effed up distribution is how stake was originally distributed and then stake weighted inflation. The combination of both made this place Ben Bernake's wet dream.
It's not bid bots fault.
You're absolutely correct on all counts. My stance on bots isn't based on their economic effects on Steemit, but rather the philosophical and political reality that bots voting equates humans to things.
That being said, while bots aren't the cause of the problems on Steemit, I observe that neither have they fixed it, and they are become a primary vector for concentrating wealth here - despite efforts to use them to better distribute wealth.
Also, I have noted that self, paid, or automated votes aren't curation, but rather promotion. Have you thoughts on this?
As I recall, you were integrally involved in the recent work @stellabelle and @fulltimegeek undertook to delegate SP to human curators. I suspect this indicates you do have an interest in human curation.
I belatedly realize that much of your work has related to bots and promotion, and you may feel I disparage that. I do not. I think your direct experience and efforts will inform your insight into these issues, and that is highly valuable.
I have long advocated a different solution, and have never said that solutions others have undertaken were somehow malicious. I am confident you are motivated strongly by a desire to benefit the community, and that the valuable experience you have gained in your work to date here will only contribute to greater success henceforth, regardless of how you proceed.
This is why you retain my proxy. My confidence and faith in you is greater than that I have in any other Steemer (not even pandering. It's just true). Even in the unlikely event that you and others all agree to completely adopt all my proposals here, you and MSP will but benefit, and grow stronger, particularly as your experience provides specific valuable insight on these issues.
Edison learned 999 ways how not to make a lightbulb, and considered each attempt a valuable benefit to his research. I know you also do the same - unless you are jaded by too many too easy successes! =p
In any case, I point out that my proxy concretely demonstrates my continued and enduring confidence that you are, and will, do what you believe is the right thing, and further that I am certain you effectively benefit the community more than any other I could support, despite my philosophical disagreement.
Thanks!
Well said.
My 2 cents is that Bots will not go away (its the future so they're here to stay)
but we can minimize their effects.
Also, I am against ANYTHING that remotely looks like Advertising in any way.
That's essentially what big whales have become... Giant ADVERTISEMENTS.
And some of the Ads say "Stay Away from SteemIt!"
It's a conundrum that promotional efforts on Steemit are causing users to leave. While such promotional efforts aren't exerted outside Steemit, so can't be used to attract users to the platform, at least until SMT's come online, the reality is that votebots, which folks use to improve their rewards, are causing rewards to be concentrated more, rather than less.
@bitopia has posted a great idea to improve the promotions feature of Steemit, which could replace votebots - but not the income bots produce for substantial stakeholders.
As many investments require patience, it may be that stakeholders in Steem need to forego immediate profits in order to generate capital gains.
I think this is pretty obvious, from the data. It is difficult to say when it's your ducats on the line, but cognitive dissonance has never improved an investor's ability to profit. Either user retention improves dramatically, which requires several orders of magnitude of improvement in distribution, which requires whales' dilution of their stakes, or the consequences will be diminution of those stakes, in terms of value relative to other currency.
Were you to ask me would I rather have $100 which was enough to buy an ice cream cone, or $1 which could buy two, I'd take the dollar. The problem isn't academic for substantial stakeholders here, and either the 38 yachts that need the fleet of leaky skiffs to bring them content begin to fix those skiffs, or they will quit getting content from the skiffs that sink or are abandoned (my rising tide floats all boats analogy).
Thanks!
Huh I guess I would strongly have to disagree that all automated voting is equivalent to paid vote services.
Services like Streemian and Steemauto and Steemvoter which allow users to automatically trail their votes either after a curation trail or a fan base trail (trail after a user's posting) are basically vote bots - they provide a web-front end so the average user can implement this, but there is no difference between those services and setting up a vote bot (fossbot for instance). And both of those things that I mentioned - curation trails and fanbase trails -are forms of automated voting that are vitally important to the success of this platform. What would you suggest somebody do who has a large stake of SP but does not have the time to vote manually? Delegate it all out (which yields zero returns for their investment)? Do you really think it is a bad thing if they choose posters that they know are quality posters and trail their vote after the posting automatically? Do you really think that supporting good manual curators by following their vote trail is a bad thing?
Proving your worth as a consistently good curator and parlaying that into getting a bunch of people to follow your curation trail is really the only way to make any kind of decent payout at all curating on this platform. The trailing votes add to the curation reward the initial curator gets.
I am speaking as a NOT-bot here, as I have 6 manual curators who vote for me (all 6 share my posting key) and every vote that has ever been cast by this account has been cast manually. I very much appreciate the good people who have put their trust in our curation by following the @r-bot curation trail and I can promise you that those automated trailing votes are doing the blockchain a world of good. Killing all automated voting is an incredibly shortsighted thing to propose.
Cheers - Carl "@r-bot" Gnash / @carlgnash
I am going to quote this and answer it separately here.
I do think they should delegate it to users that will share the joy, if they haven't the time to do so themselves.
And I vehemently disagree that it yields zero return. It simply encourages capital gains to produce returns, a mechanism that has worked since before history began. It just doesn't reap short term cash, like selling brooms out the back door would.
I think disregarding capital gains is terribly shortsighted, and is going to cause Steemit to fail. I think it's going to cause Steemit to fail because cash is king, and those who have mined the majority of Steem that exists are going to milk those stakes until they can't, and then move on.
That's not good for Steemit in the long run.
I think having a promoted section for posts with paid upvotes is a great idea. I'd love to hear any arguments against it.
As to killing all bots; I've seen it argued that without bots there would be little curation done, as there aren't enough manual curators. I dunno how true that is. It seems to me from the number of comments on posts that there are quite a few.
Not only that, but were bots to no longer deliver votes, all the rewards delivered would then come from manual curation. The same amount of rewards are produced either way.
Without bots, manual curation would become far more valuable. Bots demonstrably reduce human curation value, in terms of economic impact, by (I have seen but one estimate, from @everittdmickey) 95%. I submit that bots are decreasing the incentive to produce quality posts by an amount equal to their degree of curation.
I see one downside to banning bots, and that is that it would impact the 38 whales ability to profit from their stakes right now. I point out that they really have two choices. 1) continue to concentrate Steem in their wallets, and drive users away, or 2) begin to drive at least 30% of rewards to the 99+% of accounts that do not have mined stakes.
Really, the choice is theirs, and the consequences of their decision will be their responsibility. If they want to convert their flash mined stakes into actual money, they're going to have to use them to create a market - and they're failing to do that now.
@blocktrades proposal to make curation more profitable, so he can profit better from his stake now, won't improve that market. It will concentrate more Steem in his, and other paid delegation and votebot services, wallets.
This is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen for him to actually realize a profit in actual money, rather than imaginary tokens.
Thanks!
First of all thank you for making a suggestion. There are so many people giving out about the problem and so few actually putting ideas and suggestions together to overcome it.
I like the idea of a captchas to reduce the bot activity :-)
Thanks! I value your contributions and analyses very much.
Do you think you'll be able to make the Steempanel? I really think you, @arcange, and others with valuable data analysis skills are essential to these issues.
I really wish I could but saturdays i have football matches, dancing and all the things that go along with kids
Well, better spent time =D
We certainly cant stop the activities of bot its like having human right, however i believe this can also be done at the right way. Instead of abusing the bot system. Thank you for writing this
I fear that what you are saying is the bots have rights. I cannot agree, and further the very thought of it is actually terrifying. A robot has been granted citizenship by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and this did not give the robot rights. Rights cannot be given.
They can be taken away. Granting a robot the same rights as citizens doesn't elevate the robot - it degrades human people to the same legal rights as have toasters.
A political scenario more potential of horror cannot be imagined.
Bots have no rights, just as your shoes have no rights. People do have rights, and therefore it is an evil crime to disassemble them and strip them for their parts, unlike bots and toasters.
Poor John Henry!
and still we do not learn... compete against a machine/slave ,become one
Excellent insight!
It further illustrates how tools, and bots, can be a blessing. Replacing John Henry's need to mindlessly swing a hammer all day is wonderful. Replacing John Henry's wife - well, maybe not so much (although John Henry might disagree XD). Replacing John Henry at the voting booth is sacrilege.
I'm 'agin it.
relegating advertising to the promoted feed,
If I serialize a book which I have on Amazon...then what?
killing all bots, and preventing censorship
yes definitely
and propaganda on Steemit
how is preventing propaganda not censorship?
One person's propaganda is another person's 'raising awareness' or 'educating the masses'
By strict definition of the term YOU would have to delete most, if not all , of your posts..
Excellent reply!
Well, are you self voting, buying votes, or receiving automated votes on it? If you aren't doing those things, you're not eligible for the promotion feed, IMHO. There are obviously more complex repercussions of such a policy change that need to be discussed, and I am incompetent to think of all of them, or get them all right even when they're brought to my attention.
You clearly know that publishing on Amazon isn't publishing on Steemit, and that publishing elsewhere has, so far, on Steemit been simply considered something that should be completely supported.
As to propaganda, many people would agree with you regarding opinion posts being propaganda. However I am intending the word to be used in the sense of paid promotion, or suppression, of opinions.
There's gonna be some disagreement about what is or isn't propaganda, but I maintain that an individuals opinions aren't propaganda, unless they're paid to have them.
On Steemit, as we're paid to post (at least theoretically =p) this is a bit of a tricky question. Clearly we can't say 'he's only posting that because it's popular, and he'll get upvotes!' and call that, even it's true, propaganda.
@bloom receives regular payments from some outside source, and labels himself a 'professional flagger'. I submit there's a qualitative, discernible difference, that is actionable.
I'm open to discussion on the matter. I am even (warily) willing to drop it. Astroturfing, the kinds of psyops that are exposed in 'Weird Scenes from Laurel Canyon', by Dave McGowan, and such, are dangers wherever free speech exists.
Thanks for your incisive questions!
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance:Steemit and Bot Warfare
I will definitely be tuning into the Steem panel.
I think that outlawing the bots isn't necessary... but that would mean that most steemians would have to ignore them. With the "easy money" mind set happening, that seems hard to do.
Shameless plug:
Last week I interviewed @carlgnash. In these videos he discusses curation, curie, and upvotebots. Episode 1 is Here
The final episode #4 is about the upvote bots.
This is an issue which demonstrates a wide variety of diverse viewpoints, and I certainly ain't gonna hold my breath until everyone agrees I am right.
I want there to be discussion, so people can hear considered positions, and give them thought. There are statistics which show real world results, and right now the situation is dire. Steemit is in trouble. New users are very much in trouble.
Even whales are really suffering from the current situation, believe it or not. Of everyone involved, because of the significant stake they have involved, they have more at stake than anyone.
There is a way to look at bots, whales, and Steemit that revolves around ROI. Bots allow whales to extract profit from their stakes, which makes their stakes in Steemit worth having in Steem. Take those vectors for profit away, and they have to have another reason to have stake.
However, those bots, and the ease with which whales are extracting profit from their stakes, is preventing rewards from inuring to content creators to a terrible degree. User retention is horrible, with ~11% of accounts opened in 2016 still active today, and that includes all the bots.
Bad user retention causes Steem to not appreciate, and the capital gains investors traditionally invest to attain aren't presently forthcoming. There is a 7000% difference in the gains in BTC and Steem in the last 6 months. Investors have other options, and have to ask themselves what to do.
One problem they have is that most stake in Steem was mined, not paid for in cash, and the market for that Steem would collapse if they powered down and cashed out, making their stakes worthless, or worth little. They don't want that, and thus they can't just convert to BTC, until Steemit grows a lot.
However, horrible retention is the effect of horrible distribution, and perhaps eliminating bots would fix that, causing Steem to appreciate rapidly, and rewarding whale's investments. Also, bots not voting is just the right thing to do, IMHO.
I'm glad at least one person is gonna be there besides me.
I look forward to hearing more of what you think about these matters!
"I'm glad at least one person is gonna be there besides me."
There are numerous curation projects going and I would venture to say that most if not all are there.
I've never really thought about it in terms of user retention but that is exactly what part of the main goal should be. Without users=no curators.
Hi Steemians! @valued-customer!
So good you catch the message, was an easy one, don't you think? :) Sometimes things are easier than they looks.
But anyway, I'm so new in here, and stupid as I see. But when I think that we are in 2017, all this Blockchain amazing job is running, almost done... But to stop some stealers we should call Nasa or something. It's kind of strange thing...
Peace! V
Well, sometimes the easiest solutions are invisible because we're looking for something complex.
I reckon the real problem with Steem, and Steemit, is that substantial stakeholders are faced with the dilemma of trying to convert their mined stakes into actual money.
Absent market growth, they can't do that. They don't want to dilute their stakes - that would make their potential profits go down. If they don't distribute significant stake to the rest of the market, however, the market won't grow.
This is the real reason that the simple solution you arrived at was not accepted by them. It doesn't solve their problem in a way that keeps their millions in their pockets.
They've either got to accept dilution of their stake or lose it, IMHO, sooner or later. In the mean time Steemit is in the throes of capital concentration unprecedented in my experience, and this is causing terrible user retention - exactly the worst threat to their fortunes that exists.
I'm glad I caught it too! I am very interested in this issue, as I think Steemit is much more than simply a vehicle that can be ridden to fortune. I think Steemit can be the key to human prosperity beyond the post market boundary that is coming, and might be a vector for free speech and human sovereignty unparalleled in human history, so I care.
I spent more than twelve hours on that post, reading comments, and commenting. Hell, I'm still commenting there =p, as I reply to folks.
Thanks for your insight!
I would love to see an end to what I consider useless bots (@randowhale and the like), but I consider some bots useful (@tipu and @cheetah, for example). Ultimately, it would be hard to create a definition of "what is good" and "what is bad", I think. Worth trying to do, but by no means obvious.
I think both @cheetah and @tipu can serve their purpose without voting. I reckon if the community made it clear that bots voting was no longer tolerable, both could easily be reconfigured.
We'd have to ask @anyx to be sure about @cheetah, so, he's tagged =)
Thanks!
Yeah, that'd work. Just comments, no votes. That'd do.
@bloom has been invited to a discussion on @blooms activities, reasoning, morals, etc. on MSP-Waves Broadcast FreezePeach Radio.
No reply as yet.
cc: @r0nd0n
I have read some of his comments, and he seems well written, possibly even intelligent. Some of what he has said, however, indicates an inability to grasp the scientific method, instead amounting to scientism.
I'd be interested in the conversation, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Thanks!
I hope that he comes around & shares his thoughts...
Yes - there is such a thing as accountablity in a free society.
@bloom - what's the complaint? Can't be bothered to justify your behaviour? Not interested in truth?
@freezepeach
@r0nd0n
Criminal @bloom has struck again. Coward!
cc @r0nd0n
🎵 Woooot!!! 🎶
This post has been manually curated by @msp-waves - the amazing broadcast station for Steemians, courtesy of @globocop.
Listen to MSP-Waves Radio on MSPWaves.com
criminal @bloom has downvoted @mspwaves.
cc @r0nd0n