EVERY WITNESS SHOWN BELOW IS CONSIDERED RADIOACTIVE
(IFF) you disagree with steemcleaners and or spaminator and or hivewatchers (THEN) stop voting for witnesses who support them and their universal blacklist
YOU HAVE 30 WITNESS VOTES AND IF YOU VOTE FOR FEWER THAN 30 WITNESSES, IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE VALUE OF YOUR VOTE
EVERY WITNESS SHOWN BELOW IS CONSIDERED RADIOACTIVE
FREEZEPEACH AND r0nd0n ARE THE GOOD-GUYS
FREEZEPEACH AND r0nd0n ARE THE GOOD-GUYS
@r0nd0n why are you supporting these downvoters ?
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
.
I'm somewhat confused with all of this, and it's really hard for artists to have to deal with this stuff because many of us don't like politics and find ourselves getting sucked into them always.. everywhere we go..
I guess that's just life.
So I delegated my witness votes to your authority so that I can be an artist and not have to focus so hard on these confusing blockchain politics that make me stressed out.
Thank you for doing the grunt work that many of us don't have time or energy for. It's not for a lack of caring, it's just a lot to manage and takes away from creative flow.
Keep up the great work!
What a ridiculous post and even more so that people blindly believe it. Disappointing to read this from you @futuremind.
You're right, my decision is an act of blindly believing what has been communicated to me.
I do not obtain the skills necessary to perform blockchain forensics, nor is it a desire of mine as a financially struggling artist currently learning a new (very complicated and time consuming) trade.
If that isn't selfish enough of me, I'm also struggling to pay bills and eat, but have been leaving my resources in the Hive blockchain as much as I can to help others in the community who may or may not be having the same struggles in life as myself.
Sorry to make this so personal @acidyo but I'm not sure if all aspects are always considered when these blockchain politics get amped up and people like myself get pulled into it.
At least I'm being transparent with my decisions here, that has to count for something in pertaining to how easily I seem to disappoint people. Seems to be the story of my fucking life.
I spent 2 hours processing your 1 line response to me while waking up. My brain is like a slow processor that gets stuck in loop sometimes. Maybe there's a virus in it. That's just a poorly placed joke I guess, trying to lighten the mood a bit..
What do you propose I do?
I'm flirting with the idea of voting no witness. This would probably disappoint people too.
Maybe I should put my projects, goals, and personal problems on hold for a few days while I try to play blockchain scientist.
Maybe there's more going on beneath the surface here that I don't know about. After all, you've always treated me with kindness and respect.
PS. Thank you kindly for sending those old OCD curator rewards, and for kindly welcoming me back to the blockchain.
Hi, sorry to hear you're not doing well financially. I respect that you're keeping assets here for long term but if you're in need then you should use them and look into being more active here if you can. I'm in the same boat and wish I could stay staked more.
I'm just baffled that people blindly trust others with their witness proxy or who to vote and unvote, felt especially bad knowing you've been part of OCD and may have an idea of what we do around the chain aside from just producing blocks.
It's not hard to see that this user cross-posted a post of mine attempting to derade my character saying I stand for follow4follow when I clearly said in the post it's regarding web2 which I don't care about as long as it helps Hive get more traction. His actions were fueled by discussions in other posts talking about downvotes and censorship which we had decent discussions with the author of them and I'm sure he himself wouldn't approve of this kind of post here. It's like they want to punish those who speak their mind while other witnesses are just inactive collecting rewards.
Thank you for responding @acidyo,
I'm sorry to hear you're in the same boat and having some struggles. I hope things quickly get better for you.
I'm going to do what I should have done to begin with and take a deep look at everything. I'll be studying the responses in this post as well, as I see there is quite a bit going on here. I know the politics/perception here greatly vary in regards to what is considered abuse of the platform, and what is considered suppression free speech. I imagine it becomes very exhausting when managing these aspects at a higher level.
I very much enjoyed my time as a curator for OCD, and certainly know the intentions were always to support good content in an unbiased manner. I even remember the process utilized to pick posts, and found it to be a very fair way to choose.
It was a bummer for me to come to terms with the fact that I am just not great with consistency and did not make a great curator. I did my best, but in the end I just had to keep it real and say "I think I'm the weak link here.." :D
Sorry for blindly acting without thinking it through very much, you're certainly right that's exactly what I did. We all make mistakes sometimes, and I feel it's what we do to correct our mistakes in life, and what we do today which defines our character.
Have a nice rest of your day.
i know this is difficult for you to imagine
what would you do if you were being downvoted by a larger account ?
what would you do if your friends were being downvoted by a larger account ?
would you perhaps take a look at what other accounts were supporting the downvoters ?
would you perhaps withdraw your support from those accounts ?
isn't this basically common-sense ?
No problem !
I'll continue to gather data.
I am with the dude above for the most part, I find I am much happier on here staying out of the politics of it all. I don't even know what ever happened with Bernie Sanders but I proxied my witness voting to him when the steem debacle was all happening, I haven't seen him around in eons. I wouldn't even know how to change things up because I can't trust the wallet issue of do I still use my old steem log ins, can you get new ones, how you do the whole process, and yes I tried and failed to understand what people were instructing me to do because it seemed incomplete. I do wish I could get it figured out, I'd buy more hive with my little, scratch little insert tiny amount of I've earned in Hive dollars and power up my hive.
i guess if they can scare any of their opponents away from voting at all, they've already won
Same as it ever was. All build systems can stomp your ass, how hard it gets stomped depends upon how determined your are to beat their system. Some even have laws in place that proclaim to protect you from violations of the system, use those laws and they will find a way to stomp you even harder. That was a hard learned lesson in life, a costly hard earned lesson. It took way more than money away from me.
good point
I am a little confused. Did you make 2 lists, people not to vote for and people to vote for?
So, I made 5 bad choices regarding the 30 witnesses I voted on? So, out of 100%, my score is roughly 85% or like a B grade. So, who do I replace those 5 votes on?
So, these 5 accounts I voted for I assume are supporting other accounts who have downvote trails? My position is the automatic flagging downvote trails are dangerous and I would discourage people away from them. I can imagine justification, excuses. I understand the theory of trying to reduce spam and such. That might be a theory behind the rationalization of downvote trails. My position is that it is probably better, generally speaking, to simply upvote what you like and ignore what you don't. I think I would disagree with the philosophy of downvote trails in general. I am not going to say exceptions to that general rule does not exist. But normalizing downvote trails is a psychological slippery slope down the wrong path.
But what if a particular witness is doing many good things and is supporting downvote trails or other things? Where do you draw the line in who you want to support for witnesses? Is there no amount of good deeds that can take some of them off your naughty list and back on your good list, Mr. Logic Zombie Santa Claus?
they argue that downvoting is "freedom-of-speech"
this is obviously false
My question is not about what they argue but about where you draw the line and who do you vote for or who might be in your top 30 or top 50. I am not going to not vote for a witness. However, I will simply vote for people meaning I can end up replacing some of them simply because I had better options, better picks. So, I vote for people who start projects like the Hive Vote for example which I like. Anything that is interesting. People behind PeakD, Ecency, 3Speak, Hive Blocks, Hive Blog the website app part, and maybe even Leo Finance. If I can come up with 30 witnesses, accounts, connected to whichever might be my favorite projects, etc, that would be how I go about who I vote for and who I don't vote for.
I try not to think too much about who not to vote for. I guess if somebody was too bad like Hitler, then you would probably put Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Lenin or Rothschild or Soros or Bill Gates towards the back of the list. But then there might be a potential of voting for some people at the end of the top 30.
And there might be some overlap between things I like about a witness and things I don't. So, for example, if my top pick was the man behind Hive Vote, imagine finding that guy connected to downvote trails or other things. I could see a hypothetical situation where some downvote trails could be discouraging spam or other things. I am still against downvoting in general for many reasons. But I can see it working as much as hypothetical communism working. And communism does not work. I am against communism and downvote. But I can see some rare exceptions to the rules where it might work.
And then I ponder if a witness is divided between doing good things and doing bad things, then where do you draw the line? And do you support Leo Finance? Which projects, apps, websites, etc, are your favorite? What are your top 30 or 50 witness picks?
Blocktrades has a good website which I used to send money to Bitcoin. Why would I not support that?
Like I said, they are intelligent and well intentioned.
You can use their services without voting for them.
Nobody's calling for a "boycott" or anything.
Switching your witness vote is a signal that you care about free-speech.
The goal is to get them to fix the downvote abuse which they currently refuse to acknowledge.
How does the 10% APR work on Hive, does it mean I am paying each witness 10% of my wallet every week?
How many accounts are they unfairly downvoting each day?
the main post contains suspect accounts
this is a list of less suspect accounts -
https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@logiczombie/re-logiczombie-r1gbt1
Without the anti-abuse initiatives this platform would have been taken over by bots and the dumping would make a giant sucking sound as all the bagholders got dumped upon.
Have you spent any time checking up on what some of those folks do?
Not all of them are selfcentered jerks.
I do agree we should stop voting the rewards to largest accounts.
They have plenty, and only stop getting more when we stop voting it to them.
I am not against larger accounts. But I was concerned when I felt I was unfairly put on blacklists on Steemit and Hive. Some of my posts were downvoted, my REP score went down a few points a few times since I've joined in 2017. I'm trying to be neutral in this debate. For example, Logic mentioned Block Trades who has a website I've used for buying Bitcoin with. So, I'm not sure if I should not support a website like that.
I think the Block Trades website is useful. On one hand, I may want to support accounts relating to projects I prefer the most including Block Trades, Hive, Ecency, Peakd, Leo Finance, 3Speak, Hive Vote, etc.
But on the other hand, if some accounts are supporting downvote trails, that is where my concern lies to a degree. I can imagine that downvoting and flagging can and could and might do some good in countering spam, hate speech, plagiarism, repetition, redundancy, excess, viruses, bad things perhaps, etc, etc. I'm trying to be neutral in the debate. I understand the arguments regarding what you said, the anti-abuse initiatives.
But where do you draw the line between accounts which might be too big and too small? Accounts are always growing and shrinking. So, I try not to look at the size of the dog in the fight but more so in the size of the fight in the dog to quote Michael Jordan. Absolute power corrupts. The bigger people and corporations get, then that is when the problems can arise. There is a higher potential for abuse of power within centralization of rising power and control. So, choosing not to support larger accounts is a counteraction against that. You said you agree with not supporting larger accounts.
I somewhat agree with that to an extent. But at the same time, if I like an account, if I believe in an account, if I trust an account, a person, a company, etc, then I may support them regardless of how big.
I guess, I will have to take it on a case by case basis.
Right now, I am looking at the 30 witnesses I voted for. I may be changing some of my votes soon. I tend to focus on voting on who I like as opposed to focusing too much on who not to vote for.
My voting pattern probably sucks. I am giving away 100% votes on the posts I visit. Including any account strength. Though I am not visiting very often large account holders. Only exception: when it's about the voting issue. LOL
From a philosophical point of view, it's probably all idle. Those who absolutely have the will for change and influence assert it under all circumstances and also go into the financial stakes or engage in background talks. Those who should actually be in power do not want to have this power. But it is precisely them who should be elected. An unsolvable matter, it seems. Would you stand for election here as a Witness? Is that even possible? I have forgotten by now whether you can only be a witness if you also have a server where the block-building goes on.
Witnesses need a level of coding experience I don't have.
When things go wrong they need to be able to respond with solutions.
I would much rather see folks empower themselves by putting their opinions on the chain.
Everybody has a viewpoint that differs from all others, more voices equals a more diverse data set to make decisions from, imo.
I don't vote posts with more than 5htu on them even when I read the whole thing.
That is something folks have to decide for themselves.
Just getting the idea out there helps, so tell your readers that voting more power to the already overpowered is not helping the hive to decentralize.
The overpowered accounts shoot themselves in the foot when they agree to take more.
I think trying to network the hive to more people is the way, not overpowering it and maximizing returns to one's self.
Giving it away doesn't cut it because of the prejudice in who it is given to.
Taking from the pool to give to one's favorites centralizes who gets coins to those that brown nose the giver.
We are better served by folks that stand on their own, iyam.
Those bending their knees to the powerful are not helping in the long run.
100% THIS.
Ok, no secrets there.
You've been here long enough to see that the newbs are starting to gain ground on the old guard.
That will only increase, plenty of folks mad at hw.
guiltyparties claims hivewatchers has nothing to do with steemcleaners, and then just two days ago, they delegate 12,102 to steemcleaners
Ah, there is some data I missed.
I don't know what to do about all that, just yet.
The long game is that all those people will slowly lose power due to dilution by the inflation.
We need to build the new to make the old obsolete, and that is happening.
At one time we would have gotten wiped from the pool just for having this conversation on the chain.
Now, we just need to get folks to stop voting the big accounts.
With linear rewards there is no advantage to voting posts with large payouts.
You get the same curation rewards on a .1htu post as you do a 500htu post.
Anybody with any sense of what is happening knows it is in their best interest to spread the coin to those without any, rather than those with the most, but web 2.0 still feeds into the popular.
That will change with time.
Anybody dumping their hive over emotional reactions is gonna regret it in 5 years, or less.
In the second year I was here I recognized the problems presented by the ninjamine blowing out the math.
Most of the beneficiaries of that largess are gone, though not all.
Just a matter of time and the field will level itself, if we stop voting rewards to the largest accounts.
There it is.
Yes, and now things are different.
Not ideal, but not as bad as it could be.
sure.
all i'm suggesting is that it's silly to vote for accounts that are downvoting you.
all i'm suggesting is that it's silly to vote for accounts that are downvoting your friends.
Thanks for voting my witness :)
It is highly recommended and also very wise not to always choose only the big Witness. Also the small ones provide one or more servers and they also have costs which they invest for the decentralization of the Hive Blockchain.
GREAT WORK
failing to vote for 30 witnesses does NOT increase the value of your vote
Thanks for the research, the Downvote abuse is getting out of hand and there is clearly collusion. I will be checking my witness votes soon. In the mean time, the targeting spreads to more and bigger accounts every day...
....blurt is nice !
https://hive.blog/hive/@mmmmkkkk311/let-s-go-brandon-let
I was wondering what all this was about. Guess I'm honored to be considered as part of the oligarchy. I mostly work on listings and partnerships these days. Haven't done much with Hivewatchers or Spaminator except technical and phishing/account recovery types due to how much time goes into Hive opportunities.
All of this aside, I upvoted this post. Because I want to know who relies on a diagram to cast their votes and who thinks for themselves.
you are obviously intelligent and well intentioned.
let me ask your advice.
how would you suggest i mitigate the automatic downvotes i'm currently receiving ?
You aren't getting automatic downvotes. I am checking as to why the Steemcleaners account was used and by whom. That account was formally retired (for obvious name-related reasons) and is not a part of Hivewatchers or any anti-abuse project.
The only bot we have that can do real automatic downvotes is Spaminator. If there's no Spaminator downvote on something then there is no automatic downvote. Hivewatchers is manual and Steemcleaners as I said is retired and not used for any 'official' purposes.
sure, perhaps not technically "automatic" but certainly 100% of my comments are being downvoted within 24 hours.
i appreciate that i'm not "officially" being downvoted, but steemcleaners is an official account, and if the "officials" have lost control of the account, it seems that someone should perhaps undelegate to that account.
also, certainly someone knows who is controlling steemcleaners because they removed the hivewatchers info from their profile after i mentioned it to hivewatchers.
wasn't steemcleaners converted to hivewatchers ?
did they just forget about $25,965.45 worth of HIVE tokens ?
also,
what would you do in my position ?
No man, no matter what it can't be automatic. Only I have access to Spaminator's code and framework. I'm looking into it. Steemcleaners is owned officially by my partner and is not part of Hivewatchers. I don't make it a habit making references to pre-Hive through account names.
Arhag was a consensus witness who one day decided to retire and left. He never retracted any of his delegations and no one can reach him. Doesn't seem like the amount of money he has in his wallet is of any significance for him but that's just my guess.
Thanks.
I believe you when you say it can't be "automatic".
But it remains a fact that 100% of my comments are being downvoted.
ALSO,
$33,813.479 HIVE is staked directly in the steemcleaners account (NOT delegated by arhag).
This $33,813.479 could probably be put to better use by hivewatchers i'm guessing.
Not through the Spaminator framework which is the only automatic framework that's part of Hivewatchers and I would support. I don't believe in anything that votes that I didn't at least partially code myself. I'm looking into this already.
A few of us have very recently started moving to Blurt from Hive. No down voting on Blurt.
also a good move
Is it better to hold Hive Power (HP) or to keep money in savings? I mean, how does the 10% APR gained in savings compare to however much you might earn via having it in HP? I was always told SP and now HP is better. The logic is more HP means you can vote at a higher weight and therefore make more and more as opposed to a fixed 10% via savings. I still hold to the belief that HP is probably better as long as you are actively upvoting and accumulating HP on a daily basis. Inactive accounts would probably make more money having money sitting in the savings.
Dear @logiczombie, Are you pointing out the problem with downvoting? Do you think downvoting should go away? I have a hard time understanding your American nuance.
there is an argument for downvoting "abuse"
what do you consider qualifies as "abuse" ?
Hmm, Perhaps you are right.
The problem I see with voting witnesses is, that it is transparent to all.
Keeping elections secret has a good reason, I think. The secret ballot protects the voter from possible negative consequences. After all, it is not his voting behaviour that should count, but the content of what an author or blogger decides to publish. To the extent that I, as an individual blogger, am scanned by the parties themselves (called witnesses here) for who I vote for and who I don't, it may be that my content is seen as politically coloured, even though my own claim is that it is motivated by neither supporting nor disagreeing with one policy or the other. I am basically against my political opinion becoming part of a judgement that could even be understood as permanent, even though I change my mind various times, take different perspectives, etc..
Since I cannot keep my vote secret here, I am more inclined to reset all my witness votes and not vote for anyone. The purely theoretical question this raises for me would be, what if no one voted for a witness? In fact, these witnesses would not stop working and would not shut down their servers. Basically, I think that in the beginning, at the emergence of the blockchain, there were self-appointing witnesses and they have existed ever since.
The elections here are basically none, because no one can really check what the quality of the witness work is, there is no time limit associated with it, because no one seems to give up being a witness after a certain period of time. There is also no obvious opposition, at least not visible to me, which is similar in strength to the established and therefore forms a relevant counterweight.
In fact, I have only a limited interest in politics and all attempts to have a say in it have resulted in me having to make my own financial effort to be a (political) voice with weight. I might even do that if I knew about trading and technology, but then I'd probably be a different person. LOL - to the extent that I have sought to read up and understand the activities of some witnesses here on the blogs, I have found that I lack understanding. The many technical terms and details elude me and ultimately bore me.
In the grand scheme of things, while the power holders are obviously the stronger ones and the participants who think they are dependent on the payouts or the attention that comes solely from the established interest group activities will continue to think so. At the edge of the mainstream, there always remain the less conformist and the odd ones out, who, though unseen, unaccepted by most, make do with what they encounter. In the end, I have little to gain from a post of mine being answered with the usual phrases. I am always looking for an inspiring exchange, which I achieve with very few here. Which is not a complaint, merely a fact. I also wouldn't have time to have such conversations with very many people, as they cost time and energy.
Participating in interest-groups is nevertheless needed if one wants at least have some attention. I am a bit tired of the thought, that if one participates here and there, and this "here" and "there" are totally different in their images, you may lose both: support from the one and the other interest group.
From another angle, you could say that one has to take the risk that your votings influence how you are treated here. ... I have not made my mind up, ultimately, and I probably won't.
I decide by individual encounters, individual situations. This is probably not everyones notion and how one acts in this sphere but I am one amongst the many and different behaviors is what I call "variety".
If my vote would be secret, I would probably be more involved or would cast my votes a lot more easily and relaxed.
Problem with secret votes is people can lie about how many votes they got like Biden did in 2020 by saying Biden got 81 million votes when in reality Biden probably got less than 40 million real votes in 2020. The Internet is generally not private meaning even hypothetically private stuff on the world wide web are read by the CIA and other agencies from different countries among other things too. Too often, they will do things with your private information. It is better to be standing up on top of a hill in the public so everyone can see when the bullies come to punch you in the face. If you try to go in the corner to do things in private, then you could be murdered in quiet and nobody will know. The Internet is not private and it is very hard to make it private. Even when something is said to be private, it may not be private enough. Because there are too many prism programs embedded in computer servers, data centers, the real backbone aspects of the Internet. Crazy people are able to blackmail people, etc.
ah ... in the end it's a matter of trust. And luck. And how positive and with a light spirit I move through this world.
Privacy seems to get extinct.
Nevertheless it's important to be left with an intimate place of retreatment.
Agreed.
I changed some of my witness votes this past week. Still looking through which projects I want to emphasize the most on.
thank you for taking a look
Step one: scare all your critics into NOT VOTING (so nobody "opposes you")
Step two: convince people who might vote for lower ranked witnesses that they "don't understand" the technical aspects and or they need to do "more research"
Step three: vote for yourself and claim "the community supports me"
Looks like a circle jerkoff😏 Would like more info on Blurt though😊
blurt is a copy of hive, you probably already have an account over there, with the same keys.
they implemented nominal transaction fees to mitigate "abuse" and removed the downvote option.
Thank you! And how do I get there?
https://blurt.blog/@logiczombie
Thanks💟
https://hive.blog/hive/@mmmmkkkk311/let-s-go-brandon-let
🤣🤣🤣
I stopped voting for witnesses after the chain split when Justin Sun took over. It turns out HIVE made a private rule that if you voted for an account that supported Justin Sun, that your Steem balance wouldn't carry over to HIVE. And this excluded a lot of well-meaning people's stake from carrying over to HIVE. For example, I changed my vote just in time. I had voted for a witness who claimed to be against downvotes, and after some digging, I realized that they were voting for prominent downvoters. That's why I removed my witness from them. But unbeknownst to me, they supported some of Justin Sun's sock puppets towards the end there. So I unvoted them for my reason, but not the "right reason," and had I not done so, my stake would not have carried over to HIVE. All that said, if they are going to punish people based on who they voted for, I will not vote a witness at all. With my low amount of stake, this is less significant than if I were a prominent stakeholder. As far as steemcleaners, spaminator, cheetah, and hivewatchers are concerned: I see that some cases they pursue are legit, but they also have to tighten up against some of the blatant abuse that their accounts carry out.
If an account was not copied from Steem to Hive, said account could try to transfer the money to a new account on Hive via a third party. So, for those who had their accounts copied, carried over, or forked in other words, they are in a way getting double the money which is kind of like inflation and not technically inflation. But I am not sure my thoughts on it. I like the extra money but at the same time don't like diluting the value money can have.
I feel ya man, it's all kinda fucky
right? Welcome to crypto!
great points
i guess if they can scare any of their opponents away from voting at all, they've already won
You've got my attention, I'll have to think
on that some. This also has my attention.
intriguing
acidyo - marky - pharasim - blocktrades - ocd - steemcleaners - anyx - all working together
You do realize that without 4 of those 7 accounts hive wouldn't be here.
They were early adopters of the prior chain and fundamental to establishing what constituted abuse.
Anyx paid for cheetah to run, and absent that bot the pool would have quickly been dumped by other well known, but currently absent, names.
The hive is what it is, it will be what we make of it.
We could do with more organizing of the new stakeholders, imo.
If they all get funneled into channels, rather than growing on their own, they become debilitated in how to grow.
It's like using a crutch too much.
just let me know who you can confirm are advocates for free-speech
I only vouch for me, all others probably have the common limits on speech.
No yelling fire in the theatre.
No inciting riots.
Neither of which do I advocate against.
I do advocate personal responsibility.
If you yell fire in a theatre, and get lynched, don't look to me for sympathy.
Our current level of controlled society needs some more riots, imo.
When society enslaves us, anti-socialism is duty, iyam.
Much of this is wrong. We work together on all of Hive.
please point out specifically what you believe is provably-false.
Acidyo = OCD - massive curation and community incubation project
Marky - technical Hive contributions, retired from anti-abuse
Pharesim - curation project
Blocktrades - his team works on Hive core code and related tech
Steemcleaners - account is retired, now Hivewatchers
Anyx - maintains several nodes, retired from anti-abuse
Everyone is working together on Hive because without collaboration, there'd be no Hive. I think I can speak for everyone when I say that we do not have the time to collude in regards to downvoting someone.
i've received large downvotes from blocktrades and from usainvote so i am positive they do not believe in free-speech and also don't believe in even explaining why they might downvote me.
i've spoken extensively with marky who is buildawhale and i know he doesn't believe downvote abuse is a serious problem and has obliterated accounts that criticize them.
i'm not suggesting that all of these accounts are 100% in agreement on everything.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT NONE OF THEM ARE THE SLIGHTEST BIT CONCERNED WITH ENFORCING UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR DOWNVOTING.
2 MILLION TO BUILDAWHALE
They're just using downvotes as they're meant to be used on chain. We can't have uniform standards, this isn't EOS. To claim that because they downvoted you they're not pro free speech is absurd. Everyone who is working on Hive is here because they are for free speech and freedom in general. Those who aren't stayed with Steemit.
(IFF) you want to downvote to mitigate "abuse" (THEN) you must clearly define "abuse"
(IFF) you downvote someone (THEN) you should let them know what the fuck they did "wrong"
(IFF) you only support speech you agree with (THEN) you do not support free-speech
I think it is correct what @antisocialist and others say who point to the positive work of the witnesses mentioned.
At the same time, it is a problem when criticism is not equally taken as positive feedback but as hostile or too provocative from the side of the witnesses. This is also reflected by the superficiality of the many commentators who are generous with praise but hold back with their own thoughts and suggestions either out of ignorance or disinterest or the all-pervasive superficiality.
The reactions of the small users as a whole to the activities of the large stakeholders and their interest group activities (communities) are presumably seen as predominantly confirming, and ultimately they are.
I'm past the time when I actively made suggestions about features and choices, they were all either ignored or taken as "not interesting, not feasible". Since little has changed in my suggestions and I still get no concrete response to questions to the major stakeholders, I see no interest from their side either.
You will only be heard if you show a financial commitment in addition to a publicist approach. Often only the latter is enough, without blogging at all. Of course, this is not decentralised or democratic in the true sense.
I think the chain has anarchical components as it has restricted, controlled and standardised ones. It depends where you look.
So, I think the searching feature on Hive actually needs more attention and better ergonomics and finding results. I am not able to find things here through the searching feature.
Also, the feature "how many eyes" read a publication does not exist. I wonder, why.
There is no feature for guest-commenting, without having a person registering for an own account.
I asked for this features several times: no answers.
Search does needs some help.
Eyes on posts is hard to coordinate across the many servers serving up content.
There are ways to get a 'light' account that don't require maintaining your own keys, but the purpose of blockchain is to ensure the integrity of ownership over the account, and that requires a full account and personal control of keys.
Way around search limits is this, use keywords via external search engines like Yandex: https://yandex.com
Asking people to consider changing their witness votes seems to have garnered the attention of the most influential account on the chain.
That guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone else sure made some wildly unscientific comments 😂 We can still take it as a win for anti vaccine/pro freedom. Nice one! :)
no kidding
tag @zyx066
please consider reviewing your witness votes
tag @da-dawn
please consider reviewing your witness votes
(IFF) you only support speech you agree with (THEN) you do NOT support free-speech
https://peakd.com/whales/@pressfortruth/this-is-going-to-devastate-the-industry-owner-of-gusto-unfairly-targeted-by-circuit-breaker-lockdown-whoever-is-downvoting-why
tag @barge
No half measures with you brother, I know that :D
....but I only see 60% of a fair point that you make!
If you'd be so kind as to check back in a certain wee while of your choosing, I need to go and consult a mushroom:
Truly honoured to have an entire post devoted to a point of my Conscience 🙏
i am honored by your focus
@chrisrice, @kencode
transparency
HIVE!D
We gonna Vote our way outta this?
https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/stalking-and-cyberbullying/
https://www.dickinson-wright.com/practice-areas/data-privacy-cybersecurity?tab=0
https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/contacts/311-toronto/contact-list-provincial-ministry-of-government-and-consumer-services-consumer-protection-branch.html
...voting our way out of this is impossible if the large accounts are colluding.
Voting patterns would suggest that they are.
voting for people who are downvoting you is pretty silly
less wrong