I watched this same video on Jeff's Dtube account the other day. I rather see some good Keiser Report related content on Steem not reposts of other accounts I follow. I dont think you deserve to profit from the Steem reward pool for reposting this being that it is not your own work.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I certainly don't need any money so please don't upvote it, give that to someone else. But you will certainly not silence me from my sharing information with my followers who are interested in EOS. Well, perhaps you can here and that seems to be something that people are interested in doing, but, I have shared this now on Twitter and other social media platforms without anyone trying to silence me. - Stacy
Clearly you don't understand how this blockchain works. Even if I wanted to I could not censor you. Everything you post here is forever in the blockchain. You also have an option to decline rewards.
FYI - I supported this very video on Jeffs Dtube account and I have no interest in "silencing this content." I am also a huge fan of EOS and appreciate Dans work.
Good luck.
Clearly you are a complete hypocrite. You upvoted the same video to number 1 and number 2 spots on trending. Then you reduce a post to zero because it isn't original work. It is good damn obvious this post is not an attempt at plagiarism as the author has not in anyway claimed it to be their own. Clearly this is just a simple share of content that was found to be useful. This post was not even self-voted.
@keiserreport produces plenty of quality original content. If you really want to help the Steem platform don't chase away people that are adding value and stop promoting repeat content.
Even better, powerdown and fuck off.
Agreed, 1000%
Stacey posting what she find interesting is her contribution to Steem.
If you think forcing everyone to click an extra button to see content and comments is not a form of censorship you should think of it as a spectrum. The opposite of censorship is being able to achieve top trending ranks and being able to influence that is what gives the voting power granted by holding and staking of the token it's value.
I don't think you've closed the loop of how value flows in this blockchain.
I'd be curious to compare our visions of Steem, Hit me up on Discord if interested.
Be exact. On steemit.com there is an extra button click, and that's arguably a form of censorship, though not that strong in my opinion. But on Steem there is no censorship so be responsible and make that clear.
I know to some people steemit.com = Steem but that's not the case.
Wrong Mantra.
Steemit is dying and steem will not save them this time around... Mark my words...
Having fun?
I don't like people ignoring the 0.00 threshold like it doesn't exist. I'd think it's easier for most UI to have different behavior for content going below that threshold.
It could be argued that any amount of flagging is censorship but that complete censorship is impossible on Steem. I don't see any fundamental problem thinking some people might want to invest in Steem solely to be able to censor content they don't like/agree with.
Removing potential monetary rewards is not censorship. Removing the content is censorship, and the degree to which that happens is to be determined case by case. Since content is not removed at all from the blockchain, no matter what the rewards, as far as the blockchain is concerned there is no censorship. Hiding posts on steemit.com is arguably censorship because it is apparently removed, even though it is still accessible.