You did gain at least one follower. Tho my addition would have happened anyway.
Just an opinion. The one who gains most from the bot is the bot owner. If the bot was not profitable, people would not program them.
Bots once programmed require no time or any more effort from the programmer, the possibility arises where the bots will be taking more from the platform then the whales.
You also then have the situation where one person makes 25 bots and all use the same program working under alternative identities.
What would happen if the use of bots for votes was prohibited? and may result in loss or confiscation of account. Where there is so much controversy over the use of bots and their value, as a bot does not take the quality of a vote into account.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
People are awakening to the fact quality matters now more than ever, plenty of bot owners already started blacklisting people.
Would it be possible to approach @ned If I remember right he has the power within the Steemit platform, this would depend on how many followers you got to support a no bot platform. Myself, I am of a moral belief that the buying of votes always brings a confliction of interest between the personal and the community. More often at the expense of a community.
Ned shouldnt do anything to regulate a thing here... this is decentralized and no one has the authority or even should.
We are at odds here again. I would like to debate it further, tho I see you are firm in your belief, I do not want to step on your toes so to speak. More just to dance a few words with you. On the result of total decentralization.
Oh I'm always open to discussion man, you won't step on my toes... the most that can happen is that I dont change my mind. Other than that I think that everyone should have their opinion...