Sort:  

Don't you wonder the same when you see similar things happening on new hive @josediccus?

What's the difference? Censorship on hive already exceeded that on Steemit. Many users didn't receive any airdropped tokens, however their content had been copied/mirrored without asking them about their permission. Etc. etc.

I just think it's time to move on. Both parties have been fighting this was with tons of low blows.

Shouldn't you be busy spamming wallets and brown nosing stake holders for donations? Why do you leave out the part about the appeal process when it comes to that airdrop? Is far too inconvenient for you to speak on the facts? Why come and add fuel to fire with your typical sensationalist approach to life, then say, "I just think it's time to move on." Ulterior motive perhaps?

P.S. You still owe me ten bucks after I told you the cost to send me wallet spam is 10 bucks per memo and you agreed to stop, but didn't stop.

Yeah you stupid @crypto.piotr, stop spamming the blockchain with your useless donation. Are you a bagger in real life too? Your statement is beyond stupidity. No one cares what you write.

Please do explain how not receiving airdrops is censorship? What do you understand 'censorship' do be because I see a lot of people misconstruing words.

the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

This clearly has nothing to do with what youre talking about. Everyone was given an account--a chance and a voice. That's the point of a decentralized network and not receiving tokens. Tokens are just incentives to interact with the chain.

However the same can't be said about steem as there is a deliberate act to hide and remove content. Sentiments asides steem is a shit show. I still post there for the monetary gain, I do not believe in what they are building and to be frank, my time there is limited

They supported the hostile takeover from Justin Sun and they weren't entitled to the airdrop it was freely given and because of their actions that's clearly not censorship.

So, just exclude everyone that have a different opinion and voted for different witnesses?

Isn't it the same thing as what Justin Sun is doing?

Not different opinion, opinion to centralise the chain

Still a different opinion.

So, instead of the witness figuring out how to make the chain safer from this kind of action, they decided to exclude everyone that disagreed with then (No airdrop means no resource credits, therefore, not able to use the new chain).

Same actions as Justin Sun, different clothes.

It isn't a difference of opinion, it is a hostile action taken against the chain and the community.

The hostile action was done by Justin Sun. Those who voted on his witness could be doing so because they disagreed with what the old Steem witness have done in the past, and was expecting that both parties reached an agreement and moved Steem foward.

@steemchiller is on example, but i have seen a lot of the "black listed" users expressed that they voted on Sun witness because they wanted both sides to talk and reach something better for the system.

So, assuming that everyone that voted for Justin witness as "bad people" is just as excluding as Justin Sun actions.

And again, instead of "blocking" these people, witness/developers responsability was/is to improve the system so the same thing doesn't happen on the future.

No one was blocked or blacklisted, people who supported the steem hostile takeover did not receive free money.

What example is that?

There's no such thing as "playing neutral" when you are actually voting.

Do you go to the political ballet and vote each parties equally and call them a "neutral" vote?

Even in the US, a "neutral" vote wouldn't be voting for both Democrats and Republicans.

FFS man.

Never said neutral.

What i said was that they disagreed with witness, but also didn't fully supported Justin.

The whole problem i see is that they were excluded because they didn't fully support the old witness (before or after the take over, doesnt matter).

So this works like blaming the voter instead of fixing the problem(wich is still adjusting the system to not allow this to happen again).

Never said neutral.

May want to revisit his stance on the matter. A few of them likes to use the "balance" nonsense.

but also didn't fully supported Justin.

That equates to support. End of discussion.

Er the content is on the blockchain which means it forking for the taking. Not legal can be done for it.
The coin airdrop while very unfair to many should be stated does not mean you have the right to get it it a new coin that using a distribution method no "legal" authority for it.

Hi @crypto.piotr,

I really enjoy all your interesting post, but please rethink the weight of comparing this two things.

a. deleting and censoring post by Justin
b. not giving a free airdrop

In my world this is something total different.

You keep using that word censorship for people not getting free tokens. It kind of makes you look like an idiot.

Censorship isn't caused by removal of funds. Anyone who didn't get the airdrop doesn't suddenly lose their posts, if Censorship-resistance is what you want, then not removing posts is perfectly acceptable and NOT censorship.

Anyway, you do you.

you would do well to move on and stop spamming me.

Not receiving free tokens is not censorship.

Not receiving airdropped tokens does not mean being censored. They can still login and post content. Their existing content is still their ownership and they can come and blank the post if they want it removed.

What are you talking about? As one of the biggest spammers on chain you should have a better understanding of these things.