Nope. You're putting it too lightly without showing his intentions.
He's asking people to stop using steemit.com, not because there are better frontends out there, but because he doesn't like the people in charge of steemit. He says to #boycottsteemit. It's not his decision to make. Using influence to censor a group of people is against decentralization.
But there are, and have been for some time.
That's putting it quite nicely. I'd argue that it's because the person (Justin Sun) and/or organization (TRON) who purchased SteemIT have been attempting a hostile takeover of the Steem blockchain for days now, referring to our consensus witnesses as "malicious hacker," and convincing 3 crypto exchanges to commit an unheard of act in using custodial stakes to overthrow a chain's governance system.
Correct, and I agree. Boycotts are one of the best voluntary, nonviolent ways to make change, requiring nothing more than taking personal responsibility.
Well, for him it is. For you, it's your decision. For me, it's mine. And we can each share our choice (or not) as we choose. And we can each adjust our decisions as we learn/experience more...
He's not promoting any kind of censorship. He never said anyone should DDoS them, mute their accounts, delete their stake, fork away from them, or anything else. Simply stop being their products. Remember, SteemitInc's value is the number of users it has, its ad revenue from those users, and its Alexa ratings. You are their product, just like FedBook.
Voluntary, means you can say "no" if you want. You can choose not to interact with a person/group of persons if you choose, and you are more than free to share those choices with others.
We are putting the cart in front of the horse.
Those statements would have never been issued, and the exchanges would have never had to step in if a few people didn't move to freeze Tron's stake. The way I see it, that was the only way Justin could do something about it.
We claim that we did what we did to protect the chain, to facilitate negotiations. However, imagine if this happened to a wealthy investor who didn't have friends in Binance or Huobi, then it wouldn't have been a negotiation at all. He'd have been forced to accept the terms of the witnesses because his stake was held ransom.
By every definition, that's not a negotiation.
That's blackmail.
We really shouldn't be playing the victim on this one. It's kinda pathetic considering our witnesses started this whole thing. I do not think enough time and effort was given towards negotiating with the new leaders of steemit inc about their previous agreements on governance and stake usage.
Thank you for your input.