Huh? I'm talking about vote selling. My crime for which this account flagged me appears to be timing the purchase of votes from accounts that sell votes and being too successful. The very first vote I ever purchased on Steem came from the account @randowhale which is a vote selling bot that this account's author also created.
To me there is some strange and seemingly less than genuine reasoning at hand.
Flags people for self voting yet votes own posts for large profits.
Flags people for bot votes yet has a plethora of bots for voting with.
Flags people for buying votes yet was a pioneer of the concept on the platform.
The lack of warning and hypocritical pretenses irk this former customer. It's not like I can really do anything about it beyond flap my angry butterfly wings here though.
You have been flagged, likely because you are attempting to take advantage of the reward pool. Please see my daily post for more detailed reasoning. Thank you.
Well, for a start, hypocrisy does not invalidate an argument. I eat meat but I still preach against animal farming. Doesn't make my argument invalid. But that's beside the point.
The bigger issue nobody seems to be telling you is, it's plagiarism. A quick look on your page and I see something from The Verge.
A quick look at The Verge's Terms:
'commercial' is key here. As far as I'm concerned your channel is frequently breaking the law and profiting from it, so IMO it needs to be flagged (I use my own flags for albeit much smaller forms of the same thing when I find it)
"Well, for a start, hypocrisy does not invalidate an argument."
Sometimes it can.
"I eat meat but I still preach against animal farming."
Practice what you preach. That hypocrisy does hurt your case as a preacher trying to persuade others.
" As far as I'm concerned your channel is frequently breaking the law and profiting from it"
I think you're wrong. I think fair use and attribution add much nuance to the debate. I think I'm a benefit to them and give them traffic. Maybe if enough people share content and it get's exposure these sites will add a Steemit button alongside the existing buttons they have which endorse the behaviour of sharing a snippet with a link on social networks.
That's conjecture. They'd more likely make their own steemit account and post their own material. It's not nuanced when it says right there clearly that you may no use entirely or in part their material for commercial use. There's no getting around that with nuance.
The only exception I can think is what I do; contacting the authors and asking for permission (And that really could potentially lead to a little steemit button on some websites, who knows)
"It's not nuanced when it says right there clearly that you may no use entirely or in part their material for commercial use. "
That has disqualified you from trying to make any more points in regards to the law in my eyes. You've demonstrated a complete lack knowledge on the matter.
"The only exception I can think"
Your thought on the matter is myopic.
edit: I forgot to mention that your casting my words as conjecture is ironically hilarious. The way you fused conjecture into an accusation of conjecture on someone else is some next level shit.
ok