scrobble.life
#blog

RIP Hivewatchers

Hivewatchers is gone. I don't celebrate it, and I don't mourn it.

image source: ChatGPT

Hivewatchers is no more.

Well, bugger me. I have to admit that came as something of a shock. While I like to tell everyone I don't do much with Hive these days, that's not strictly true. I can be found in Ecency Town Square Mon - Fri., but for the most part, I'm concentrating on other things. Apparently I missed the moment when one of the institutions that has been part of the landscape for as long as I can remember has disappeared. Or, perhaps more accurately, the Hivewatchers we knew have disappeared. While there is apparently a proposal to bring the project back, for now the old Hivewatchers are dead, and that deserves a moment's reflection because, love them or hate them, Hivewatchers were part of Hive.

The project goes back to 2016, originally as Steemcleaners, before becoming Hivewatchers after the creation of Hive. Originally, they focused mainly on plagiarism, copy/paste abuse, and reward abuse. Over the years, this expanded to include identity theft, scams, fraud, botnets, and all sorts of other unpleasantness.

They actually did a bloody great deal of work.

According to their own figures, between August 2020 and January 2024, they received 11,677 reports, of which 10,844 were accepted as valid abuse. That's not a trivial number. These included 6,155 plagiarism reports, 156 identity theft/deception cases, 812 photography/art/image plagiarism cases, 742 copy-and-paste cases, 2,247 recycled posts and 566 unverified identity cases. They also said that their work had returned tens of thousands of HBD to the reward pool.

image source: ChatGPT

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, this isn't going to be one of those posts where I pretend Hivewatchers achieved nothing. They did, and @guiltyparties, in particular, put an enormous amount of work into it, devoting hours of his own time and fiat for free.

But...

I've never been entirely comfortable with the way Hivewatchers operated. And this is where my usual problem with freedom comes in.

I am a great believer in absolute freedom. Well...

"Hang on, so you're saying your idea of the right way to behave is the right idea over everyone's choice, are you?"

Err? Ooh? Umm? No.

I'm not that stupid; freedom doesn't mean that everybody else has to put up with you behaving like a complete arsehole.

People cannot behave.

That's one of the great problems with freedom: who gets to say what the so-called right way to behave is?

So yes, there has to be some mechanism for dealing with people who deliberately abuse a system, but there is a big difference between dealing with abuse and creating an authority that decides what constitutes abuse, identifies the guilty party, determines the punishment, and then effectively controls the route of appeal.

That's the bit that always bothered me.

The blacklist.

There were certainly cases where the reasons for blacklisting appeared, from the outside at least, extraordinarily tenuous. I have no direct evidence that people were blacklisted because somebody simply had a grudge against them, or was jealous of them, or just didn't like them. But I do think the system made it possible. If I have a dispute with you, and there is a mechanism to report you to someone with the power to affect your rewards, then human nature being what it is...

Well.

You can probably finish that sentence yourself.

It also creates a rather unpleasant throw-him-under-the-bus mentality, and Hive has always had a bit of that. Tribalism: people picking sides. Somebody becomes one of us, and somebody else becomes one of them. And once you've decided somebody is one of them, it becomes surprisingly easy to find reasons why everything they do is wrong. That's not unique to Hivewatchers; it's not even unique to Hive. It's human nature, but giving that human nature a mechanism for reporting people, blacklisting them and removing their rewards is something I have always regarded with considerable suspicion.

And then there was the appeal process.

Ah yes.

The appeal process.

image source: ChatGPT

As I understood it, if you found yourself blacklisted, you were directed towards Discord. Now, I know Discord is terribly easy to use if you already know Discord, but what if you don't?

  • What if you didn't know where the Hivewatchers Discord was?
  • What if you didn't understand Discord?
  • What if you didn't understand what all the different channels were for?
  • What if you didn't understand the terminology?

And what if, by the time you finally found the right place, you discovered you were entering a room full of people who already knew the rules, already knew the case, and already had an opinion? That doesn't strike me as an especially accessible appeals system. It always struck me like being thrown into a bear pit to be told: "Right, you've been accused of something. Convince the people in here that you're not guilty."

And yes, I know that wasn't literally what happened in every case; people successfully appealed. Some people admitted what they'd done, changed their behaviour, and eventually got removed from the blacklist. But that's actually the point I'm making.

I believe there should have been a rehabilitation route built in from the beginning.

Not simply:

  • You've been caught.
  • You're blacklisted.
  • Appeal.
  • Prove your innocence or demonstrate that you understand your crime.
  • Then you're allowed back.

What I would have preferred was an escalation process.

A warning. Then perhaps a temporary sanction. Then a stronger sanction for repeated behaviour.

And only eventually a blacklist for people who demonstrated that they either couldn't or wouldn't change.

And, crucially, a clearly defined road back because people make mistakes. Some deliberately. Some accidentally. Some because they're new and haven't got a bloody clue what they're doing. Some because the rules aren't nearly as obvious as the people who have been on Hive for ten years and think they are. And some people actually learn. That's the bit I think we sometimes forget.

Punishment without rehabilitation simply creates permanent enemies.

And I don't think that's particularly healthy for a community. Which brings me back to Hivewatchers. I don't celebrate its demise, and I don't mourn it. I'm somewhere in the middle. I think Hive needed somebody doing what Hivewatchers did. I think they caught a lot of people who genuinely deserved catching. I think they saved the reward pool a considerable amount of money. I think @guiltyparties and the others put an extraordinary amount of time into something that must, at times, have been a bloody thankless job. But I also think the system had flaws. And perhaps the greatest flaw was placing too much faith in the idea that a handful of individuals should be trusted to decide where to draw the line. Because eventually somebody asks the obvious question.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who guards the guardians?

And then somebody else says:

"We need moderators."

And I hear a little alarm bell go off in my head the moment somebody says, "We need somebody to decide what everyone else is allowed to do."

I'm already up out of my seat, ready to leave. Perhaps that's the real lesson here. Freedom isn't about allowing people to behave however they like without consequence. It's about making damn sure that the people imposing the consequences have limits too. And if you're going to take somebody's reputation, rewards, or livelihood away, maybe give them a way back. Not a bear pit or a ritual apology. Not a permanent label but a way back. Because if people cannot redeem themselves, what exactly are we trying to achieve?

Now the old Hivewatchers are gone. The irony, of course, is that the people with the big sticks haven't disappeared; they're still out there, they're just holding different sticks. And I suspect Hive will still need people willing to point out the scammers, plagiarists, spammers, and assorted ne'er-do-wells. I'd rather we build a system where the objective is to stop bad behaviour, rather than permanently deciding who the bad people are.

RIP Hivewatchers.

You did some good. You did some things I didn't like. And whether we liked you or not, Hive is a slightly different place without you now.

Where did I put my bloody freedom rostrum? 😉

image source: ChatGPT

Comments · 4

  • @mein-senf-dazu(75)· 14d

    En (Deutsch unten)

    Oh, how wonderful ;)

    Yes, I think it's a good thing, because in my opinion, Hivewatchers did a lot of damage to Hive.

    As far as I know, there was quite a substantial DHF proposal, and there were one or two calculations showing that the amount they supposedly saved was only a fraction of what they received.

    I used an example back then: it would be like the government spending $1 billion to recover $100 million in evaded taxes.

    But even without taking that into account, I think the damage was immense.

    It's perfectly fine to do something about plagiarism and scams, to help with stolen accounts, and similar things.

    But appointing yourself as some kind of content police and deciding what is acceptable and what isn't — that's going too far. Okay, when it comes to things like... no, I don't even want to say it. Maybe you know what I mean. Things like that need to be dealt with harshly everywhere and should never be tolerated...

    But banning giveaways while not even understanding how they work? That's simply not okay. And then refusing to reconsider when parts of the community disagree with the decision — with Hivewatchers' decision — isn't okay either. Especially while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to what some of the big players were doing.

    Burn posts?

    Anyone who understands the maths behind them knows that they're certainly not to the benefit of the community! Perhaps minimally, but they benefit those who use them the most by far.

    The maths behind Hivewatchers is a declining number of users, less activity, and a lower value for the entire ecosystem.

    Can that still be fixed now?

    Of course, if you're a landlord, you don't want tenants who refuse to pay their rent. But burning down the house to get rid of them is probably the wrong way to go about it.

    Hivewatchers also caused some larger users to power down. I would estimate several hundred thousand HIVE, and that was at a time when HIVE was worth considerably more.

    Was that really such a good thing?

    DE

    Oh wie schön ;)

    Ja ich finde es gut, denn meiner Meinung nach hat es Hive sehr geschadet.

    Soweit ich weiß gab es doch ein recht hohes DFH und es gab die eine oder andere Berechnung, das das eingesparte ein Bruchteil davon war.

    Da hatte ich damals ein Beispiel gemacht, wäre so als wenn der Staat 1 Mrd. ausgeben würde um 100 Mio. hinterzogene Steuern einzusammeln.

    Aber auch ohne das zu betrachten, gabs immensen Schaden.

    Es ist Ok was gegen Plagiate zu machen, etwas gegen Scam, helfen bei Account Diebstahl und ähnliches.

    Aber aich als Contentwächter aufspielen und zu entscheiden, was ok ist, was nicht, das ist zu viel. Ok, bei sachen wie... nein das will ich nicht aussprechen, vielleicht weißt du was ich meine. Sowas muss überall hart bestraft werden und darf es nicht geben...

    Aber Gewinnspiele zu verbieten und diese noch nicht mal zu verstehen, das geht gar nicht und dann nicht mal Einsichtig sein, wenn einige aus der Community dagegen sind. Also gegen Hivewatchers Entscheidung, dann ist das nicht Ok. Aber dann wiederum die Machenschaften der Großen zu lassen.

    Burnposts? Wer die Mathematik dahinter kennt, weiß das das keineswegs zum Vorteil der Community ist! Minimal, aber Maximal für diejenigen, die es nutzen.

    Die Mathematik hinter Hivewatcher ist eine Sinkende Userzahl, weniger Aktivität, weniger Wert des ganzen Systems.

    Wird das nun noch zu Retten sein?

    Das du als Vermieter keine Mietnomaden haben willst, ist klar. Aber das Haus in Brand zu setzen um sie los zu werden, ja das ist der falsche Weg.

    Hivewatcher hat dafür gesorgt, dass auch größere User Powerdowns gemacht haben, ich schätze mehrere 100k, das noch bei einem höheren Kurs.

    Ob das so gut war?

  • @jjfloresok(48)· 15d

    Genial!!!

  • @cwow2(73)· 15d

    Biggest problem with HW was the control Logic had over it and the use for his personal use x)

    Logic deemed me a low-trust user based on his own findings/ideas and wouldn't ask or let me proof him wrong. He was certain I did things.

    8 years on hive and I am now "permanently" marked by spaminator still :D

    I did call Logic very bad words to be fair :p

  • @steevc(81)· 17d

    I think it's a shitty job, but we've needed someone to do it. Can you imagine the hatred they have suffered over the years? I bet there were all kinds of threats so it's no wonder they stay fairly anonymous. I think it's largely been one guy and he did it as a job so had to live on what income the DHF gave him, possibly plus local benefits. It looks like the big accounts took their votes off the proposal so it's a long way off hitting the payout threshold. I don't know what discussions are still going on between them.

    Hive is bound to attract all the chancers as it's practically money for nothing if you can game the system. You can create a load of bot accounts that vote for each other and that is probably easier now with AI tools. We shall see how that works out. We can also use AI to try and detect abuse. That may already be happening.

    I also have issues with how HW has operated. Apart from the very obvious deliberate abuse there have been plenty of people who had no idea of 'acceptable behaviour' here and got hammered immediately. I would agree they needed warnings. Having to jump through hoops on Discord is not great and many will just give up.

    Some people have fixed ideas of what Hive should be, but I think we should try to be as open as possible to different types of content. I very rarely downvote anything these days and am not involved in any groups doing so.

    I definitely don't have all the answers on how to create a 'fair' system that handles different attacks. If Hive scales up then things will change and give new challenges. If the price goes up then we are bound to see more abuse. Those with the power can decide what efforts get funded.

    Meanwhile most of us just get on with posting and being social here.