Although I'm on your side, I must ask: Is it truly right for you to do this? Doesn't this sort of thing manipulate the free market? Even if this isn't quite the same as a government police force going in and manipulating the market, it'd be just as bothersome if a fellow shopkeeper went to an opposing shop and threw the goods on the ground or something, just because they don't like what someone else is selling.
Is it truly right to use a bot to do this? I just want to start some discussion, so don't think I'm some plagiarism-fan.
~Kitten
Since the bot is taking no action other than providing information for the readers, yes, it's truly right for @anyx to do this.
It's the user that decides what action to take based on all of the information available.
I like this answer. Indeed, it is up to the voters to decide what they want, ultimately. Cheetah just helps the voter to have more information readily available.
Even though I agree to some level of content verification, @heretickitten has a point and it is not answered.
@hoopatang says: "Since the bot is taking no action other than providing information for the readers"...
Providing information is an action. And the very action of informing the user about possible (not certain) plagiarism is conditioning the users to be suspicious.
9 out 10 times, the cheetah-bot will be accurate. What happens to the 1 out of 10?
What is less harmful?
9 guilty men free
or
1 innocent man in jail?
the answer to that depends on the nature of the crime; if the "crime" is for drug use or the failure to pay a fine, it is obvious that Blackstone was right.
If the crime is of a mala in se and ongoing nature that will result in further damage to society, then by utilitarian measure it is better that 1 innocent man be jailed
example; a terror group plots a mass murder spree. if a raid on the group bags 9 terrorists and 1 man who is there by coincidence ( a relative perhaps), the lives saved by the raid are more "valuable" than the one life degraded by loss of freedom.
it would be nice if life were white and black and moral codes were easy to create and abide by.
so in the case of Steemit, you would have to make a judgement on how serious the damage caused by the 9 spammers versus the one innocent poster could be.
someone goes to jail?
Of course It is truly right. It doesn't manipulate the free market. It says: "Hey, better watch out, fake products over there!", so other buyers (upvoters) have choice to follow that advice or not. That's because of that freedom, not against it. Besides, I like cats. :-)
Usually the market works better when there is more information available to everybody.
This kind of information about content is public good so @cheetah is making a huge public service for the Steem community.
The bot is just making light of the fact that similar content resides elsewhere. It's not abusively interjecting opinion, it's informing readers of a possibly relevant fact.
wow
Seriously; the internet has needed a police force for a decade, every blog or website has a 'moderator' function. Next you will tell me there is something called the First Amendment in the American Constitution or something.
Free Speech is only for those who can enforce their rights to it...
Good Luck ;)