"Hive is decentralised! Plus, you get rewarded for your work!"
What do folk mean by decentralised? Advocates of Hive on Twitter etc., when extolling the virtues of the supposed new wonderland, will tell you stuff like "Nobody can delete your account; you're in control. Nobody can silence you!" The only honest part of that statement is the deletion bit. The rest is, well, open to interpretation at best.
Show me somebody that didn't join because of the rewards, and I'll show you a liar. We all joined for the rewards; if there were no rewards, we'd all stay on the platforms we were on before, happy to be receiving comments from our friends and support through Flattr, Patreon and PayPal what I'm getting at is Hive Rewards are what makes the platform tick, whether it's the HP (Hive Power) or HBD (Hive Backed Dollars) it's only after you've built up a healthy account with a decent amount of Crypto behind you. A powerhouse of HP and a good level of followers whereby you could post a picture of your dirty socks and still earn double figures rewards that you can start to be smug and tell everyone "Oh, I'm not in it for the money, I'm in it for the community, I want to build something."
Now we're pretty smart people; we know that the moment financial rewards are involved, sadly, pond life raises its ugly head, which is where Hivewatchers comes into play.
I suspect Hive does need some sort of protection force; I'm just not convinced HW is fit for purpose anymore. It seems to me it's functioning on old methods and technologies migrated from STEEM. The project's website is still abysmal, with clearly only one function, to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoers! I complained to the project three years ago, pointing out that at least their Abuse Guides should be up there for all to see! And yet nothing has changed there.
Last week, I fell foul of Steemcleaners. I've been uploading old podcast episodes to cast.garden, tbh, I did wonder if there was going to be a problem even with assurances that it would be OK. Now I was pretty angry at the downvote, mainly because my posts never get into double figures, and so it seemed rather mean-spirited and spiteful, IMO. I presume I have committed the cardinal sin of posting content to Hive that had been posted elsewhere before? Personally, I think this rule (I thought there were no rules on Hive? It's Decentralised?) is wrong if the content is the authors. I agree that the same thing should not be posted multiple times On Hive, but a first-time appearance should be acceptable. I found something both interesting and weird today. Buried down the comments of this Proposal Post was a screen grab of a conversation in the HW Discord channel.
image source
This begs the question:
- 1. Who has access to Steemcleaners?
- 2. It's clearly not retired and still dishing out downvotes
Going off on a bit of a tangent, although still Hivewatchers related, I notice that HW has now added AI (ChatGPT) to its list of "Things I can destroy accounts for doing" I must say, I'm not surprised, but I was surprised that HW seems, yet again, to be making a weird ruling. Apparently, AI Art is acceptable on Hive. WTF? So long as you state the tool you used to create it, claim as many rewards as the sheep are willing to give you! AI Text, though is bad! No rewards for that piece of poetry or Pros you produced on the same software that produced that picture of an owl that earned $50. So poetry is not art, apparently? Even the Japanese Haiku, which has been celebrated for centuries as the highest cultural art form, is not art; according to HW. I'm wondering which friend of HW produces AI-generated art? That would explain the strange double standard.
PeakD commented on the post:
Hivewatchers seems to think they have a tool to discover ChatGPT content. They don't. The AI Classifier that they are using states:
Our classifier is not fully reliable. In our evaluations on a “challenge set” of English texts, our classifier correctly identifies 26% of AI-written text (true positives) as “likely AI-written,” while incorrectly labeling human-written text as AI-written 9% of the time (false positives).So that means there is a strong possibility of false conviction by HW. I myself had an intensive play with OpenMinds ChatGPT4, and I, too, ran the output through two separate plagiarism checkers, and both failed to detect anything. I suspect the only potential method of checking would be to compare the author's previous work to see if the style and vocabulary (i.e. the words used) match the suspect latest post.
This is all probably a bit rambling, but there's a lot I wanted to get off my chest, plus I'm more interested in hopefully the comments and conversations this work should invoke.
Image created by irisworld
My actual name is Pete. Here is why I have the username dickturpin.
You can also find me on Social Media
 |
https://mastodon.org.uk/@dick_turpin |
 |
https://castlecannon.house/profile/dick_turpin |
|
https://twitter.com/dick_turpin |
 |
https://www.facebook.com/peter.cannon3 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Create your license: Choose
Podcaster. FOSS, Linux & Creative Commons Advocate.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."