On second thought that wasn't a good idea... Guess some would create lots of spam so they could earn a lot from that. Let's go for the anti-spam algorithm!

Bots are spam, 99% of them anyway, from what I have seen. Really do I need to constantly see ionlysaymeep saying meep, on thousands of post. Do I need to wade through the tens of thousand steemit badge crap post that are longer than most post in the comment to see what the poor sod's comment that got stuck between two of those post? Do I need to see that idiotic kiss blowing bloke blow one more up someones ass? Get rid of the useless minnow,whale,meep,kiss, bullshit spam bots and 90% of your spam problem will go away. A bot is not entitled to free speech in my opinion. If the stupid bot owner has something to say, then he/she/it can damn well say it on there own with out using a **SPAM BOT** KILL THE SPAM BOTS, KILL THE SPAM.

Of course, *this* is an ideological debate. And there is no absolute answer, given there are bound to be different opinions on this - just as there were on the issue of the hard fork that split Ethereum into two chains.

I'd say fuck the ideology of **absolute** non-censorship. Focus on the broader context...

Spam is SPAM. If the community agrees that spam is inappropriate, fuck the particularity of "hard-coded censorship" - the community has agreed that spam is inappropriate, and uses the tools at hands to enforce that standard which shall ensure the integrity of the platform.

It's not a matter of "censorship" - it's one of defining clear rules of conduct for this shared digital space and establishing the conditions to enforce those rules. If people don't like the rules and want a space that fits their ideological standard of complete anti-censorship so they can spam with disregard for respect of the community's other members, then they can go elsewhere.

Re: flagging... good in theory. not so much in practice.

*Most* people **won't** flag.

Many don't know the function is even there. Yet more don't have a fully clear understanding of when and when it's not appropriate to use. And many *may* be tempted to use it, feeling it'd be appropriate, but are too fearful of using it - feeling they'd either be a "bad" person for penalizing somebody according to their own subjectivity **or** not wanting to piss anybody off by flagging them and perhaps reaping the consequences of making enemies that could do them greater damage in the future.

From my viewpoint, a clear agreement on what constitutes spam and setting measures in place to automate the enforcement of such a defined cultural code is the only way this issue may effectively be addressed. I could be wrong, though I'm focused on what'd be **effective** and best serve the community first before caring about being *right*...

I think you are making a good point here, that stuff belongs at the interface not the network level and even then it's a tricky problem to solve. We can probably all agree that spam is bad. But can we all agree what is spam? I would bet that we cannot, that people have widely different opinions on what is spam and what isn't because it's not as simple as it sounds. If detecting spam was simple, you wouldn't be told to "check your spam folder" so often, despite the fact that many companies have worked for decades on solving the problem of email spam.

However it is also dumb. If you actually own the content you are posting and have previously posted it elsewhere it can eventually lead to you being put on a list and it will start flagging your posts. Since there isn't really a person behind it it can be difficult for people to get off that list even after proving multiple times and ways that they own and produce the content.

such is one example of where a bot *can/might* be useful.

and even again, as @o1o1o1o addresses - even *that* has its potential downside of counterproductively targeting users who might be posting duplicates of **their own** comments.

such, here we go into the dualistic nature of the universe - no clear black-or-white answers all the time...

good point.

not a bad idea. though at the same time, even *that* would come with the drawback of restricting the possibility of potentially great conversations initiated with comments from newer users.

please clarify: does that mean that currently, someone with less than a 25 reputation cannot comment on others' stories, or what do you mean by the "universal 25?"

YES. Love it. Resteemed! :-)

Amen.

And even *if* leaving a short comment, best put some original energy into it that distinguishes it from an absolute basi"nice/great post."

Nonetheless, it is what it is. Best lead by example...