@patrice, this is a tough question to answer... we can go back and look at it in the context of the "intent" of Steemit.
As always, that's where we will find our first problem... ALL project leads and crazy genuises like Dan HUGELY UNDERESTIMATE the sheer number of bottom dwellers who'll sell their parents and their kids for 10 cents without a second thought. "But that will never happen HERE!!"
Yeah, nice. It CAN and it WILL. And 10-100 times worse than you could imagine.
As I write these words, there are probably five million people who'd invade Steemit if you told them they could make 1/10c for each comment they paste on Steemit. They don't care about Steemit, about Dan's vision, about cryptos, about community, about creating content, about becoming stake holders. Most likely, the only thing that's keeping them at bay is the fact that they can't cash out to PayPal every time they have 25 cents.
Think I'm exaggerating? I've been playing this gig for 20 years... same story, new venue.
We're blessed here because we DO have an active and engaged community.
Sorry, I've evaded your question.
Repetitive posting of the same thing (with, or without, reference to the original content) to such a degree it looks like "it could have been done by automation" constitutes spam. Some spam is innocent/inadvertent... initiated by some who are simply on a "monkey see, monkey do" quest... and can be redirected to productivity.
Some is systematic "harvesting" as you are well aware of.
Which brings up the issue of whether an action is "defensible" simply because the code allows it. Including spam. Some "freedom purists" will argue it is, and that anything we do has to be done at the code level.
So then we run into our second philosophical conundrum: Code vs. community.
"Communities" are-- by definition-- built by PEOPLE, not by code, bots or automation. Of course, once you involve people, you also involve subjectivity. You can create the smartest algorithm on the planet, and it still won't be able to tell you whether any one piece of content is "spam" or "content," in its current context. Cheetah is great because she points things out, but then a human gets to double-check. Sadkitten is only as effective as the parameters humans feed her.
Spam? Well, we can create loose descriptions of "undesirable content" and those interested in saving Steemit from meltdown can form their opinions from there.
Sorry I've been so busy I missed this comment.
I really don't think you are exaggerating.
These are the users I wish I had more time for.
Code purists drive me up the wall. If I found a code flaw that allowed me to blow up the world, is it an acceptable thing to do? I actually asked one purist that and their answer was - Yes but no one will ever create a program with unsecured access to allow it. Doh! There is a reason it is called a flaw...
Sadly this is true. Now that we have dealt with the large scale bot net scammers hunting down small groups and individuals using the data has been challenging and time consuming. I haven't fed @sadkitten in a week or so.
The problem I have is how to explain to the community the difference between what I perceive as 'undesirable content' and abuse. Often I'll find users reporting good content just because someone used a copyrighted photo with or without the source. When that photo adds little value to the post and the contributor isn't trying to make us believe that the image is their own work I don't see it as 'abuse'. It may be 'undesirable content' but the intent isn't there to abuse or deceive.
My favorite argument: There are no rules on steemit! So you can't flag me for plagiarism!