You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Daily Coverup -- Transparency Under Attack.
Transparency's posts are not spam. It is extremely interesting to be able to easily see that a poster is gaming the system by purchasing votes. You people who want to keep the rest of us from seeing that you game the system are like people who are caught masterbating. Very embarrassing for you. Hilarious for the rest of us!
Some of us are investors. Steemit does not need transparency since it is a blockchain (LEDGER). I'm not going to go to a tropical island to bring salt water and sand. If you spend 4 hours or more researching and putting together an article then use $20 of YOUR hard earned money to promote it's visibility, what have you done wrong? "I don't have $50 on MY posts so now I want to say it's not fair that you forked over your own cash to?" Who is gaming the system in a world where it takes money to make money? You DO realize that steemit is a crypto-CURRENCY and without investors you can have this platform back and everything in it because every steem in existence won't be worth a dollar put together... Without money, steemit might as well follow facebook and start giving likes.
It is technically spam. Defintion of spam. Provided by the all knowing wikipedia.
"Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send an unsolicited message (spam), especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site. "
While I don't mind it when it ends up on my posts, because I am fine with people knowing if I spent money on a bit-bot. It is still spam nonetheless, I did not request it to be added to my post, so by definition it is unsolicited.
Just because you like it doesn't make it not spam. It just means you like spam (and apparently people who get caught masterbating?). Nothing wrong with that I guess. We all have our things.
Thanks for the humor; I like you already. I've been online since way before the Internet, and disagree strongly about @transparencybot's comments being spam. However, they would be less intrusive if they just stated the bottom line and included a link for people to click into the detail.
The fact that anyone could research the information doesn't make it of no value. I'm not going to research every poster that I follow. I like having the information right there, under the post.
Motives do not make something spam. What makes an item spam is that its presence degrades the experience rather than contributes to it.
I have been using Bitcoin since 2011. Doesn't mean I am significantly more knowledgeable than someone who found it in 2013 (when most other people did), and spent more time than I have researching, and building actual applications on blockchian. Time != wisdom. Time + knowledge = Wisdom.
Still spam by the definition of the word.
As the bottom part of the message has a built in solicitation.
"@Transparencybot is a non-profit initiative, please consider supporting it and the transparency it brings to our platform."
I agree and have already suggested to @transparencybot that he/she remove all of the spammy parts and put all of the detail and the verbage onto web pages, to reduce the comment to a single line that contains two links.
Your definition of spam is incomplete, as relevant comments to posts aren't spam. @transparencybot's comments aren't spam, as they directly comment on the post's relevance to the community, and part of that relevance is that they are advertising.
Buying botvotes is advertising, which is closer to the definition of spam than you should feel comfortable with.
Just because you didn't ask for comments relevant to your post in ways you would prefer not to discuss doesn't make them spam. That position hints at a desire to censor opinion you disagree with, rather than support as free speech.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it spam. If you post on social media, you are inviting relevant comments, and comments on your ad strategy are relevant to your post if you are advertising.
So, your projection of masturbatory spam-loving on @ideafarm is just revelatory of your own 'thing'.
If you would have read the entire context of the conversation you would have seen that I don't mind the posts that transparency bot leaves. I just provided the definition and said that his was incorrect. I actually followed him because his response to others is quite entertaining.
I don't mind a difference of opinion I do mind uninformed responses.
Either way doesn't matter much now as I have muted you and won't even know if you respond.
I note that people incapable of conforming their conception of reality to the actual thing end up incapable of dealing with it.
Thanks for muting me, so I can display my true character in my response, knowing you won't be seeing it.
Others will, and that's the point of social media.
Not advertising your posts to your peers, like a business to it's customers.
I note that your character is revealed by your actions, and treating your peers as business opportunities speaks volumes about your exceptionalism in your own eyes.