If you'd bring your followers over to Hive so they'd engage on your posts I can guarantee you stakeholders would more likely want to reward you than remove part of the autovotes your cross-posts from other platforms get. Your posts barely get any traction here nor does it seem like anyone's viewing them so it seems weird to take such a big part of the rewardpool when barely anyone bothers commenting on them. I see you do well on bitchute but the way rewards work here are different and any and all stakeholders have a say of what is deserving and what isn't, it's on you to convince us that you deserve more rewards from our rewardpool. One way to do so is to bring your audience over and you can both share the benefits of Hive such as you being able to curate the best comments to the top of your posts and continue receiving great comments and engagement.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If Josh's followers aren't here on Hive, who is upvoting him that so offends you? Hive doesn't provide views data, so you're simply making up a conjecture that Josh's posts don't get viewed.
All the reasons you're citing for flagging this content are BS.
Folks with Hive upvote Josh, or you wouldn't have any upvotes to counter. It's their stake to vote as they wish.
But it's not your wish to see the rewards pool distributed per user's but you and your ilk's desires.
You're just using your stake to return those rewards to the pool so that you and your ilk can tap them. That's all this is.
I strongly disapprove. I think you do too, which is why you're making up a bunch of crap to try to justify your flags. You know what would happen if folks realized you were only doing this out of pecuniary interest.
So stop. Let the market - not your thirst - set the price for content on Hive.
Your accusations of my care of the rewardpool are hilariously bad considering the amount of votes and users I upvote with ocd and ocdb daily. It's a bunch of autovotes as @smooth mentioned with a bunch of front-runners and autovoters in between mainly voted up by xeldal and co who always vote these kind of users. The fact pretty much no one who already is on hive let alone anyone he may have directly or indirectly gotten to join bother to comment on his videos tells you a lot about the lack of interest in his content let alone the rewards he should be getting. Feel free to tip him or gather other people to counter the downvotes if you feel he really deserves that much from the rewardpool, if they agree they'll easily counter it, I downvoted him once or twice and not for much.
The worst part is he's constantly trending with those autovotes yet still gets no engagement, how do you want to justify that? That's gotta be a way worse look for Hive as if it's completely dead when it really isn't than any downvotes adjusting his rewards would.
There is a simple fix for the problem you outline here: end curation rewards. I have long advocated this. I have also pointed out that @edicted has devised means of providing substantial stakeholders ROI via savings accounts that does not poison curation.
I recommend you take another look at @edicted's idea and reconsider. Allowing the wisdom of the crowd to function on Hive requires that substantial stakeholders do not overly impact curation, which is the inevitable result of curation rewards being the preferred means of attaining ROI.
The greatest value of Hive is it's potential to promote free speech, not it's token. This value potential has only grown as competing platforms increasingly censor. Hive cannot capitalize this potential by increasingly compromising curation with financialization. As innumerable social media platforms demonstrate, curation rewards are unnecessary to promote voting. The sole justification for curation rewards is ROI.
While I agree ROI is a fundamental necessity, curation rewards are not, because there are far preferable means of providing ROI, particularly the savings accounts devised by @edicted IMHO.
There is a glut of tokens on the market, while free speech becomes ever more valuable here as it is increasingly limited elsewhere. I cannot more strongly advocate capitalizing Hive's greatest value proposition, which you are instead actually reducing by flagging content due to it's economic value in exactly the same way others are inflating it's economic value for curation rewards.
In short, fix the underlying problem instead of making it worse and introducing a form of censorship (by definition, as I have shown before) that degrades Hive's most valuable feature.
I fail to understand how this is censorship by any means, the downvotes most often land quite late and the post gets quite a bit of attention before that, not to mention it has no effect on feeds from followers. You realize you're trying to defend someone who doesn't even share his Hive link on his videos, not even on his linktree but shares Steemit links and says that he relies on his Hive rewards as his main source of income. What a fucking joke. Look at the description yourself: https://www.bitchute.com/video/oBeTSEzXPnBV/
I cannot fail to note the apparently deliberate ignorance by many, including you, of the literal definition of censorship.
Do consider my previous comment as reply to your accusation I am defending Josh preferentially. I have a long history on Hive and have consistently opposed censorship regardless of the target - because I am defending Hive.
I vastly prefer trolls to censors on Hive. I have never compromised this view, and I would be surprised had you remained unfamiliar with that fact. While you are busy and do much else, I have not been shy about it and have posted frequently and extensively on the matter. If you have failed to understand it, it is not due to my lack of effort to explain.
Since Hive's greatest value potential is in enabling free speech the merest whiff of censorship reduces it's value potential. Flagging is virtually ubiquitously understood to suppress content creation. You do a lot of it, so must have at least once looked at the dictionary definition of censorship, and I find your claim of nescience hollow.
I do not believe you fail to understand how flags suppress speech, regardless of when or why they fly.
Neither do I think flagging folks is an argument convincing them to do anything but leave. If you seek to persuade someone of something, as your comment suggests you would like to persuade Josh to do, the way to do that is through presenting arguments and promoting understanding.
None of my comment should be necessary. You are clearly competent to understand these things. It is for this reason that I find it unlikely your justifications for your flags forthright. Left to speculate, the most likely explanation then is pecuniary interest. That's not a personal observation because I don't know you personally.
It is simply extremely common, and Occam's Razor applies.
Frankly, I am confident you have better things to do than flag content creators, particularly as you demonstrably seek to promote good content. There are good reasons to flag, because spammers and scammers exist.
Josh is neither. Go do something useful instead of opposing your own promotion of content creation by flagging content creators.
Man you're beginning to be pretty cringe about it, go check what censorship is on the other platforms if you want to call anything censorship. Downvoting for disagreement of rewards isn't censorship, that's just how our reward structure works. You're not demonetizing people from adrevenue or anything else he's owed, you're merely saying this person should not receive as much inflation from the value of other investors and stakeholders and compared to other authors because x and y, not cause you're trying to silence them. Maybe you're issue is that you keep referring to it as flagging when most people are already aware of the downvote changes since the EIP and being able to downvote unfair upvotes that plagued us for years is and should deservingly be pretty common by now. Ask your buddy to try a bit harder or just not expect to earn the pending rewards he sees he's getting on one of his 15 websites he cross-posts to. Other than that you're just a troll yourself wasting my time.
Ignore the definition of censorship as you will, that will not change the fact that suppressing speech is censorship.
You also apparently ignore everything else I said.
All on you man.