3 ms·
The _votes_ aren't manipulated though. The content is exactly the same even if the person "stole" it. It's immoral and scummy, certainly, but I wouldn't conside
by nsilvestri 6y ago
The _votes_ aren't manipulated though. The content is exactly the same even if the person "stole" it. It's immoral and scummy, certainly, but I wouldn't consider it vote manipulation by my definition.
- Quekid5 6y agoDepending on specifics it could also be outright copyright infringement. (Just reusing a link wouldn't be, but e.g. reuploading a video would be.)
- elliekelly 6y agoI wouldn't call all of the votes on a stolen post called "My Dog Spike" organic though either. Users have been manipulated in some, perhaps small, way because they've upvoted a post they otherwise might not have. How many of those people would have upvoted the same post titled "Some Random Guy's Dog Spike"? I suspect fewer or karmawhores wouldn't frequently use that tactic. > I wouldn't consider it vote manipulation by my definition. I suppose that's kind of my point. Your definition and perspective come from your experience on reddit as someone who posts that way. But there are other people who don't play the game of karmawhoring who might see things differently. It seems to me it's a very blurry line that is difficult to define and largely a matter of perspective. The people who have mastered the system feel it's a matter of merit while the rest feel its a matter a manipulation. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.