You assumed that I flagged your post b/c I did not like what you have to say. While in fact, when you read the message that appears before you flag, one of them are 'Hate Speech or Internet Trolling'.
Your initial post described your personality from the get go. And for someone that just came in last month, you sure have no problem shooting your mouth off with no respect at all. It actually does not matter b/c crypto and a decentralized system is a free for all and the wild wild west.
Nuclear flag war huh? If you look at my history from July 2017, I have flagged one other person, that is it. You and this new bot were number 2 and 3. There are a lot of people that flag every single week. I have flagged 3 times in 10 months.
In addition, since I have been on this platform since July 17, I have never been in one argument with anyone with the exception of today. So congratulations, you are the first.
One can get a misconception from my reply post that I am an aggressive poster based on the profanity used. But if you look at every single one of my posts or comments from July 17, you will see that I do not use profanity or swear in any of the posts. Your reply brought it out and I think that people need to stand up to what they believe is right.
Commenting on posts is fine, when a bot FORCES an unwelcome comment that has zero value on a post is SPAM. One only needs to look at a wallet to see if they were using a bot.
I personally do not need upvotes that are of zero value...
Please remove the flag. My post is neither hate speech or trolling. If you disagree, please give me the courtesy of stating the ground for your flag, with enough specificity so that I and others can form an opinion regarding whether your flag is reasonable.
BTW, IMO flags should not be used for hate speech, for the same reasons that there is no "hate speech exemption" to the First Amendment in the United States.
Since you were merely standing up for what you think is right, we have that in common. That's all I was doing. Neither one of us should be flagged for speaking our minds.
I happen to think that the comments by @transparencybot are of great value. It feels like it would if you were caught masterbating, doesn't it, to have everyone see that you paid for your votes and that you paid to rob the rewards pool? Those comments expose you for what you are, for what you KNOW that you are. That is why they are so embarrassing for you, and so hilariously funny for the rest of us.
You have no option or any control over any flags that you get, and based on what I have read, your going to get your share if you continue on this platform.
Again, READ what determines a flag as written by the developers of this platform. 'Hate speech and Internet trolling' is one of the items. Re-read your initial post, tell me that it has no hate in it.....lol.
First Amendment? Let me enlighten you a bit, that applies if your in the USA, the blockchain is worldwide. There are people posting from countries all over the world and the first amendment does not apply...
And I know it is very hard for you to comprehend, but this blockchain is transparent. All anyone needs to do is look at a wallet for anyone on this platform and see every single transaction, comment, post, reply, purchase. Can you wrap your head around that concept??? Apparently not...
It is not like we received the shit post from this bot and got busted...lol. Even the postpromoter bot sends a post indicating the vote percentage it gave.
I do appreciate that you are dialoging. You indicate the flag is because my post seems hateful or motivated by or expresses hate. Is that accurate? Are there any other grounds?
You are correct that the First Amendment reaches only acts or omissions of the federal (and State) governments of the United States. My point is that there are compelling reasons why there is no "hate speech exemption"; hate speech is fully protected. (See e.g. Snyder (2011))
My post did not express hate, either of you or of any identifiable group. If I beat the fuck out of you, it would not be a "hate crime" under California law. My post merely spoke against the practice of paying bot operators to upvote your post. My post expressed my disapproval and opposition in strong terms because I feel strongly about the issue.
I hate selfishness. Selfishness ruins everything. The difference between selfish and normal, unselfish, behavior, is analogous to the difference between cancer cells and normal cells. Normal cells promote their own self interest in a manner that benefits the body of which they are a part, and within which they have a purpose. Cancer cells promote their own self interest with a "fuck everyone else" attitude, with no concern for the effect of their behavior on other cells or on the body as a whole.
The behavior that we are discussing, paying bots to upvote so that you gain exposure, robbing the rewards pool in the process, is a cancer on the platform that will destroy steemit if it spreads. Perhaps you just never thought of it this way before and will thank me for bringing this perspective to your attention.
If so, then please remove the flag and join me in the fight against cancer.
Refs:
Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 - Supreme Court 2011
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2981429692939250360
You really need to do more research, you can quote state laws but we are not abiding by California laws. Also, as many have tried to tell you all info is transparent. This bot and others are making money off of others. This one is no less different. They are gaining their own exposure and payouts. That is the real issue.
How the First Amendment came into play is a bit ridiculous considering this platform and intention is to be decentralized.
Glenn was absolutely correct in his assessment, you are way too new and appear to just love to argue and twist info.
In addition, you really need to do more research in the fact that assault is assault in any state. Making an attempt and actually putting one's hands on another person is in fact assault.
https://www.shouselaw.com/assault.html
SMH.
That's the beginning of intelligent conversation. Me challenging someone's opinion is not arguing. I don't think that you comprehended my other points; please reread them and if you show me the courtesy of actually hearing what I say, I will return the courtesy by replying thoughtfully.
challenging something you do not understand is not challenging it is arguing without knowing all the facts. so, i'm done here. i have responded thoughtfully as did the person you upset to the point of getting flagged. i will not respond again, i gave you facts even in response to your alleged california laws. just remember people will be looking at your words.
I might well deserve to be told, "RTFM". I come here as a man drowning in the surf, crying out desperately for help. You are not catching me in my best form. I know that I have many faults, but in this desperate moment, I do not have the capacity to put on my best suit and sit down with you for a polite chat over tea.
Continuing the metaphore, there is such a drowning man in the surf at three crowded beaches. At the first beach, someone on shore yells, "Look! He is drowning! Let's help him!", and many quickly spring into action, some calling the life guards, others grabbing objects that will float and running to him, jumping into the water to reach him before he goes under.
At the second beach, someone yells, "Look! He's drowning! Twenty dollars that he dies!" and many people place bets and enjoy the spectacle, hoping that they will see someone die that day.
At the third beach, no one hears the man's desperate cries.
Which beach metaphore fits the people here at steemit?