People talk about the transparency of the blockchain and it is all there for the world to see but, this isn't quite true is it? To be able to pull data from the blockchain requires specialised skills and time, two things not everyone has. In fact, even when people do have skills and time, two different people can have different numbers returned depending on how they query it. The 'transparency' of the blockchain isn't transparent to everyone as not everyone has the required literacy to read it.
Transparency requires open knowledge and when that comes in a specialised language that many do not understand, it is not good enough to say 'it is all there, do it yourself'. This is especially true on the Steem blockchain considering there are something like 1.7 million transactions a day (according to blocktivity.info). This means that even if one does want to have a look, to get granular information, it takes more skills and time.
Imagine going into the doctor with an illness, an illness that they feel they recognise and can treat but, instead of providing their diagnosis and writing a prescription, they say, "Go to medical school, it is all available there." Thanks doctor.
A community is made up of a wide assortment of skillsets and levels of ability and for all things to be taken care of effectively, it requires cooperation and sharing of resources. In a perfect world, people would be able to play around in the areas that interest them and where they can find the highest level of themselves and offer it to the community if they choose. This means that each can explore their field and the knowledge they learn can become part of the resource pool. Essentially, we have translators of specialisation.
The Steem blockchain is a unique system because it is backed by the content of a community and there is a large range of diversity taking part. There are all kinds of skills. Some are coders and developers, some statisticians, some accountants, lawyers, artists, authors, witnesses, community developers, charity workers and the like.
When it comes to querying the blockchain, professional translators are needed but, there is just not enough to go around and without adequate tools for the non-professionals which would essentially equate to a dictionary, the amateurs just can't get hold of the information easily, nor in a timely manner.
There has been quite a few complaints against 
Spam
Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.
sourceThe first word is irrelevant. The bots message is tailored to the specific post it comments upon and offers a look at some of the data on that post. It is highly relevant and is not a cut and paste message.
The next key word is unsolicited. This is not the case either as it is asked for and has been asked for by hundreds of users at least. The space under the posts is public and is not owned by the author of the post. The post owner can of course act there as a member of the public though.
Next, typically to a large number of users. It isn't sending it out to a large number of users at all, it is targeted very specifically to posts voted by bidbots over 50 dollars. It doesn't target one specific user nor does it randomly target any user.
Finally, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc. It does not advertise and stopped asking for delegations on the comments it delivers. It doesn't even ask for support anymore.
All it is, is a limited query of the blockchain that gives a window into one specific section of it and even comes with the disclaimer:
This information is being presented in the interest of transparency on our platform @****** and is by no means a judgement of your work.
Again, people can agree or disagree with the delivery and what is valuable or not but, even many of the bidbot users who have received the message have upvoted it in the interest of transparency. Some have commented that without a promoted label, this is a current option available.
My point is that calling it Spam is incorrect via definition of spam itself. Labelling it as such and using it as a defence to flag it is a poor position. One may just flag it* for the fun of it* but, don't let terms get hijacked and twisted.
The current campaign against the bot (a bot which only started this week) is being run by a new account 
I have seen calls for the transparency bot to increase its reach and lower the threshold from 50. I wonder how many comments it will deliver if it commented on all posts with a bidbot used? Well, with ~9000 bidbot votes cast every day, it would get very busy. 2000? 3000?
I don't know what the answer is to the transparency question but saying it is transparent as long as you are specialized enough to look at it is not transparency. This system is complex and there is a massive amount of data travelling along the chain every day making it impossible for any one person to get a clear view of it. That is why there are so many different initiatives and accounts to bring transparency to the surface, to look at the data available and see what is there. Some data looks at generalised content, some gets quite specific but, even finding the accounts doing this is a challenge here.
The bidbot voted content reason for buying is often given as eyes on the work and, this bot does just that, brings eyes to the work. Very few are going to downvote the content they feel worthy of the payout it is receiving so as long as the payout is in the ballpark of the community expectation for such things, the bot is just an indicator. It could also be seen as advertising for the bidbots themselves since people might work out that they could make money using the bots. There are many possibilities with a little transparency.
Where does this all lead? I don't know but not actually discussing issues is likely going to create more conflict without much solution. If there were more solutions found by the community, things such as
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]