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/
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.
Ignore everything else I mentioned of why content creators like him don't just deserve to get a large stake of the pool for just being here passively.
You could have ended the conversation with this guy right here. The reality is, they don't want to understand, because there is direct motivation and reward, to not understand it. The amount of contradictions made in his arguments to this point, is interesting to say the least.
The entire point of trending feeds on this platform, is to help get authors and posts more exposure. By downvoting or removing rewards for "over-rewarding" (cough-cough), they are suppressing somebody's efforts, or "speech" - and there is motivation for some to do exactly that. In fact, it's not even a free speech issue, solely. It's a math and algorithmic problem, that is linked to speech, and therefore suppression of it.
They are blaming or punishing the author/content creator for a post that others deem worthy of rewarding. This is the inverse logic that is being used here.
If they truly believed that there was a problem with the rewards pool and structure of how rewards are distributed, then that is where a solution needs to found. They benefitted from the same rewards pool and structure, right? And have been exponentially, from the very start.
To me however, this has a lot more to do with control, rather than protecting the rewards pool. I understand this, because when you express an opinion in the comments section of an "influential users" post - and they don't like it, you get struck out...and with a gang mentality to boot - there is absolutely no doubt what the real intention behind that are.
There is a claim being made that there is a consensus for how posts should be rewarded here. I don't see any public consensus, but rather a bunch of high stake users determining the fate of individuals, off-chain.
Game theory.