"I strongly advise you offer the Hive community the ability to vote on HPS proposals to approve or deny such a terrible fate as to be completely censored, before that power degrades your morals."
I like that idea, but it seems like it might just lead to large stakeholders who vote wielding censorship instead.
"That list is anathema to censorship resistance, decentralization, truth, justice, and the American way, and you alone presently bear responsibility for that foul device."
I'm with you on censorship resistance, but I'm not sure how it's meant to effect decentralization.
Abstract truth is just as insubstantial as justice to me, and the American way only conjures contempt and scorn in my mind.
Truth, justice, and the American way is a formulaic aphorism I associate with my youthful naivete. It's unlikely to be familiar to folks not raised here.
Anathema is the enemy of. The #irredeemables list is the enemy of decentralization by enabling centralized control of speech. It could hardly be more centralized than being limited to one individual to undertake at their sole option.
As to HPS voting on censorship, it's at least a public process, which is better than what we have now, which is done in secret, in darkness, where none know it has been done, except them it has been done to. It would require action to be taken by those with substantial stake to effect censoring, which would reduce it.
Absent sound reasons presented to support the censorship, as seem not to exist in the case of @joe.public, it is likely that those voting in support of censoring accounts would also be held to account for doing so. This would reduce it as well.
It ain't perfect, but it's DPoS we got.
I'm familiar with the concept of anathema. Interesting that you would invoke such religious vernacular, though secularized as I presume it is intended. I'd imagine that's a consequence of your strong conviction.
I see what you're saying now about the threat to decentralization.
With me being very computer technology oriented, the first thing that comes to mind in terms of decentralization is decentralized network architecture.
I'm not so sure HPS voting would reduce instances of censorship though. It seems to me that it would open the process up to anyone who could manage to promote a proposal. If anything I would expect there to be far more pushes for censorship, since many more than just @themarkymark could get the ball rolling for whatever reason.
Still I suppose it would take longer to enact each individual proposal. While I think that might largely be beneficial for careful choice, it would give spammers and abusers until finalization of voting to continue their campaigns with full visibility and impact.
I'd also say that to some limited extent @themarkymark is held to account for these actions. I'm sure he notices the opposition's rhetoric, and it likely moves the needle in terms of public opinion to some degree. I don't know of much more than that which could be done by HPS.
That's my fiftieth of a dollar on the matter.
That is fine. HPS requires successful proposals to exceed the return proposal. Unless substantial yes votes are provided, HPS proposals automatically fail. This means that such spurious or troll proposals can just be ignored until they go away.
Every abstention is a vote against HPS proposals.
"Every abstention is a vote against HPS proposals."
Neat. That sounds like something I want.
How are the votes counted? I thought it was stake-weighted, so could you not just buy it essentially? If you can vote hard enough you could possibly get it through I mean. Unless you can't vote on your own, but you could still just delegate or transfer to an alt.
I'm going to go learn more about the mechanics of the proposal system.
The votes are essentially the same as witness votes as I understand it, and therefore are indeed stake-weighted.
To be successful, an HPS proposal must get more votes, more stake weighting, than the return proposal, which has substantial weight (>20M HP IIRC). Therefore proposals that do not receive substantial weight of stake do not succeed.
What I do not understand is how to make an HPS proposal. If I did, I would make one to require an HPS proposal to add a Hive account to the #irredeemables list (or the equivalent Hive is now using, if different), and to require all the accounts on it now to be voted on the same way.
This would amount to an appeal process for users presently being totally silenced by @themarkymark and the merry censors now. If good evidence of malfeasance by those accounts exists, then folks will vote to leave them on the list.
If not, they don't belong on it.
@roadscape, @drakos, and @redbeard should join @themarkymark in presenting exactly that HPS proposal, and stop censoring people covertly. Hive needs to be censorship resistant, and presently it effects censorship just as secretly as Sun Yuchen does on Steem.
Not a good look guys, and worse yet, a slippery slope to the same shitshow Steem has become, and exactly why people come here in the first place: the utter destruction of freedom of speech on legacy centralized platforms.
How do you guys expect Hive to be any different if you do the same exact things in the same exact ways as those you want to be different from?