@smooth and @ocdb do you have a reason for downvoting this? Or are you just following the trend of the curators to try and make all of the top creators leave Hive?
Overrewarded likely due to automated/apathetic votes from accounts that simply vote for whatever is on trending. I can promise you didn't earn those votes via the quality of your content so don't take either the upvotes nor downvotes personally.
You can't promise shit. Your claim you have understanding of the personal, subjective assessments of quality content of folks upvoting Josh's posts is a blatant falsehood.
To address the BS you're spewing regarding how they use their stake, if you don't like folks upvoting trending posts why have you championed curation rewards? Presumably that is why folks would just autovote trending posts.
I have upvoted Josh's posts, and will again. I have only ever voted manually. Will you reduce your flag by that amount since I can prove that the claimed justification for your flag is false by at least that amount? No, you won't, because that BS has nothing to do with why you're flagging Josh.
I can promise you have no just cause to complain about my comment, so don't take it personally. I just can't abide BS and your comment is full of it.
But hey, thanks for taking the time to respond with your cover story for killing the Hive marketing department. Josh's followers won't believe it either, but that's what you want: less competition for the rewards pool you and your ilk consider your property.
Curation rewards are fine. Downvotes are part of the mechanism, including for curation rewards. If you expend your valuable vote power pushing rewards up excessively and/or indiscriminately and downvotes then follow, your curation rewards are reduced. Higher profit comes from upvoting where there is consensus on the resulting reward, which may indeed require more effort to find content where the rewards aren't already high, as opposed to picking something more or less (or entirely) at random from "Trending" and pushing it even higher.
I do enjoy many of your interviews @joshsigurdson, have been a long time viewer and supporter of the channel. However @smooth and the rest of the community have some valid points.
With all due respect, your statements here are just showing people you don't understand the system you are using at all. If you just invested some time into communicating with the users and engaging with your community more it would help a ton. Users on Hive can also tip you directly FYI, just like YouTube superchats. That system is separate from the reward pool. Maybe people would support you that way if you educated your audience on the alternative options available here.
I think you should take some time to really study how Hive works before you make uneducated false claims, that hurts your credibility.
So, your concern is that the upvotes on Josh's content come from the rewards pool eh, @Singhcapital?
Why would I be surprised given your moniker? You are just cutting down the number of piglets suckling on the teats of the rewards pool so you can get more.
I mean, you directly contradict @smooth's smoothbrained rationale for claiming the upvotes on Josh's content have no relation to it's quality, since you state it is superable content.
The mental gymnastics you guys are undertaking should qualify as an Olympic event.
They are all lying straight to your face, and everyone else's as well. These people are the same people who got to this platform first and are the beneficiaries of "ninja-mined" stake and voting on post rewards themselves. They did not complain about that, or actually "earn" any of it, and made a total killing from the same game themselves - they now refuse to play by the same rules when it comes to everyone else, and are lecturing you and others about how you should run your own blog.
Weird huh? What does that sound like to you Josh? Sounds like the same type of people you and other alt media people are constantly talking about. Smells of extreme elitism and entitlement to me Josh....I'm sure you agree!
The entire intention here, is to intimidate you into leaving the platform because they don't like you or your content. That is what it's all about. I stopped blogging myself about a year ago, because I knew this was going to happen and we would reach this point (while nobody would listen to me at the time), after I was "punished" by some connected and entitled jerks on here for having an opinion they did not like. Yep, that's what protection rackets usually do. Blame others of what they themselves do.
That's not what it's about, like at all. No surprise that you continue spewing this bullshit, though. I think it's pretty clear that the issue here is not with the author but the massive autovotes he gets by just cross-posting his content and raking in the rewards. That's not what Hive is about, you have to contribute to the platform in other ways than just get a bonus rewards for your fame and attention you may have outside. If and when overtime his audience were to join and engage and contribute to his blogs here a lot more people would be okay with him earning more rewards from the pool since he's bringing more to Hive than just his content anyone can check out anywhere else for free, he quite literally just links his posts from bitchute and cross-posts to Steem as well. How is this a netgain for Hive? Is anyone going "oh josh is posting on hive so I should join as well" if no one is here to notice that he is posting here? I highly doubt it. All other authors are contributing in other ways to Hive, or at least caring about their account enough to spend extra time checking out other likeminded authors, connecting with them and bringing some more life to their posts. Check out @gubbatv as an example, most likely same sized fanbase outside of Hive but the difference there is she's not just becoming active and commenting only when her rewards are getting downvoted, instead she's contributing to Hive in many other ways, engaging, minting NFT's (using our dapps) and actually valueing what Hive is and how it operates. Sure there's no adrevenue to be had here yet but that might be the main problem some of these content creators come in here and expect it to work the same way, but it doesn't and people won't tolerate it. If you want to reward these content creators with autovotes just because of their name and what they share here that's fine, but you also need to be fine with other stakeholders feeling that's not enough and countering those autovotes instead of you know, going around crying censorship or demonetization when you're getting free money to begin with.
Hang on, I thought you were not interested in anything I, or others had to say about this?...How interesting. It seems that you do care about what others have to say or think (as you should), so you are here performing another rendition of your PR word magic trickery to counter the reality of what you (and a few others - it's a common disease amongst power hungry groups) are really all about. It works like an influential high stake consensus think tank, so it makes sense that you all repeat the same lines, like you are reading or writing from a pre-determined script.
You also said you couldn't be fucked reading my previous response either, because it was a "wall of text", as you said in your lame response in the PAL discord server - and the irony of that alone is absolutely hilarious. So here we are now, reading your own "wall of text". Never fear, as I will beat your wall of text, with a bigger wall of text in return.
However, I didn't actually realise that responding to someone, or making a general comment, needed to be cut to a certain length or amount of characters to appease the hierarchy around here. I do sincerely apologise for that, so please let me know how many characters I am actually limited to....I didn't realise that I was suddenly on twitter, the centralised platform, where they make the rules for you.
In fact, here is some more irony for you all. Can you see how ridiculous this below screenshot is? Probably not, but purely from selfish reasons and nothing else. That is literally from the official Hive discord server. The cognitive dissonance that resonates amongst the hive elites, is astounding to say the least. You have all completely lost touch with reality and the ideals of decentralisation.
Some of you need to take a serious look in the mirror around here. You play the victims when it involves twitter (only because you are supposed to be competing with them, while using their platform and then crying censorship - LOL more irony) and then use the same tactics around here yourselves, by exerting your own influence and power in a very similar way - and then saying it's different. It's easy to pretend you are talking to a bunch of morons who don't know any better, but alas - this is simply not true.
So please tell me, any more rules that I need to abide by to appease the hive elites? Rules that you make for everyone else, and then exempt yourselves from? Guess what - I don't need your rules, or the rules handed down to me by some self-appointed governing body who has a large influence and stake at their disposal on a so-called decentralised platform.
Imposing your will over everyone else, has nothing to do with decentralisation. Neither does making rules that suit your own interests on both a short and long term basis.
For someone who has so much influence and power on this platform, you have a serious lack of understanding of what decentralised systems/networks are, or more importantly should be all about. You have completely owned yourself with your own words here, so thanks.
If you really care so much about "over-rewarding" or an unfair distribution of rewards from some stakeholders - whilst excluding yourself and your circles from that same dilemma, then go ahead and burn the ninja mined stake, that you literally make a living from.
I highly doubt that will ever happen though. Too much entitlement for the few special people who rely on it. That forbidden fruit is way too delicious and tasty.
Yes I'm really worried about the reward pool, I've posted maybe 20 times this year even though I have access to same sized autovotes on whatever I post.
Have you seen Josh advertise Hive somewhere? I think the lack of engagement on his posts proves that he doesn't give a shit about Hive as long as the free money keeps on coming from sharing his stuff that's obviously created for other platforms.
Oh no, his fanbase that never came will see the downvotes he's getting!
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.
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.
Overrewarded likely due to automated/apathetic votes from accounts that simply vote for whatever is on trending. I can promise you didn't earn those votes via the quality of your content so don't take either the upvotes nor downvotes personally.
You can't promise shit. Your claim you have understanding of the personal, subjective assessments of quality content of folks upvoting Josh's posts is a blatant falsehood.
To address the BS you're spewing regarding how they use their stake, if you don't like folks upvoting trending posts why have you championed curation rewards? Presumably that is why folks would just autovote trending posts.
I have upvoted Josh's posts, and will again. I have only ever voted manually. Will you reduce your flag by that amount since I can prove that the claimed justification for your flag is false by at least that amount? No, you won't, because that BS has nothing to do with why you're flagging Josh.
I can promise you have no just cause to complain about my comment, so don't take it personally. I just can't abide BS and your comment is full of it.
But hey, thanks for taking the time to respond with your cover story for killing the Hive marketing department. Josh's followers won't believe it either, but that's what you want: less competition for the rewards pool you and your ilk consider your property.
You're milking your cash cow to death.
Curation rewards are fine. Downvotes are part of the mechanism, including for curation rewards. If you expend your valuable vote power pushing rewards up excessively and/or indiscriminately and downvotes then follow, your curation rewards are reduced. Higher profit comes from upvoting where there is consensus on the resulting reward, which may indeed require more effort to find content where the rewards aren't already high, as opposed to picking something more or less (or entirely) at random from "Trending" and pushing it even higher.
I do enjoy many of your interviews @joshsigurdson, have been a long time viewer and supporter of the channel. However @smooth and the rest of the community have some valid points.
With all due respect, your statements here are just showing people you don't understand the system you are using at all. If you just invested some time into communicating with the users and engaging with your community more it would help a ton. Users on Hive can also tip you directly FYI, just like YouTube superchats. That system is separate from the reward pool. Maybe people would support you that way if you educated your audience on the alternative options available here.
I think you should take some time to really study how Hive works before you make uneducated false claims, that hurts your credibility.
Good luck
So, your concern is that the upvotes on Josh's content come from the rewards pool eh, @Singhcapital?
Why would I be surprised given your moniker? You are just cutting down the number of piglets suckling on the teats of the rewards pool so you can get more.
I mean, you directly contradict @smooth's smoothbrained rationale for claiming the upvotes on Josh's content have no relation to it's quality, since you state it is superable content.
The mental gymnastics you guys are undertaking should qualify as an Olympic event.
SMDH
They are all lying straight to your face, and everyone else's as well. These people are the same people who got to this platform first and are the beneficiaries of "ninja-mined" stake and voting on post rewards themselves. They did not complain about that, or actually "earn" any of it, and made a total killing from the same game themselves - they now refuse to play by the same rules when it comes to everyone else, and are lecturing you and others about how you should run your own blog.
Weird huh? What does that sound like to you Josh? Sounds like the same type of people you and other alt media people are constantly talking about. Smells of extreme elitism and entitlement to me Josh....I'm sure you agree!
The entire intention here, is to intimidate you into leaving the platform because they don't like you or your content. That is what it's all about. I stopped blogging myself about a year ago, because I knew this was going to happen and we would reach this point (while nobody would listen to me at the time), after I was "punished" by some connected and entitled jerks on here for having an opinion they did not like. Yep, that's what protection rackets usually do. Blame others of what they themselves do.
That's not what it's about, like at all. No surprise that you continue spewing this bullshit, though. I think it's pretty clear that the issue here is not with the author but the massive autovotes he gets by just cross-posting his content and raking in the rewards. That's not what Hive is about, you have to contribute to the platform in other ways than just get a bonus rewards for your fame and attention you may have outside. If and when overtime his audience were to join and engage and contribute to his blogs here a lot more people would be okay with him earning more rewards from the pool since he's bringing more to Hive than just his content anyone can check out anywhere else for free, he quite literally just links his posts from bitchute and cross-posts to Steem as well. How is this a netgain for Hive? Is anyone going "oh josh is posting on hive so I should join as well" if no one is here to notice that he is posting here? I highly doubt it. All other authors are contributing in other ways to Hive, or at least caring about their account enough to spend extra time checking out other likeminded authors, connecting with them and bringing some more life to their posts. Check out @gubbatv as an example, most likely same sized fanbase outside of Hive but the difference there is she's not just becoming active and commenting only when her rewards are getting downvoted, instead she's contributing to Hive in many other ways, engaging, minting NFT's (using our dapps) and actually valueing what Hive is and how it operates. Sure there's no adrevenue to be had here yet but that might be the main problem some of these content creators come in here and expect it to work the same way, but it doesn't and people won't tolerate it. If you want to reward these content creators with autovotes just because of their name and what they share here that's fine, but you also need to be fine with other stakeholders feeling that's not enough and countering those autovotes instead of you know, going around crying censorship or demonetization when you're getting free money to begin with.
Hang on, I thought you were not interested in anything I, or others had to say about this?...How interesting. It seems that you do care about what others have to say or think (as you should), so you are here performing another rendition of your PR word magic trickery to counter the reality of what you (and a few others - it's a common disease amongst power hungry groups) are really all about. It works like an influential high stake consensus think tank, so it makes sense that you all repeat the same lines, like you are reading or writing from a pre-determined script.
You also said you couldn't be fucked reading my previous response either, because it was a "wall of text", as you said in your lame response in the PAL discord server - and the irony of that alone is absolutely hilarious. So here we are now, reading your own "wall of text". Never fear, as I will beat your wall of text, with a bigger wall of text in return.
However, I didn't actually realise that responding to someone, or making a general comment, needed to be cut to a certain length or amount of characters to appease the hierarchy around here. I do sincerely apologise for that, so please let me know how many characters I am actually limited to....I didn't realise that I was suddenly on twitter, the centralised platform, where they make the rules for you.
In fact, here is some more irony for you all. Can you see how ridiculous this below screenshot is? Probably not, but purely from selfish reasons and nothing else. That is literally from the official Hive discord server. The cognitive dissonance that resonates amongst the hive elites, is astounding to say the least. You have all completely lost touch with reality and the ideals of decentralisation.
Some of you need to take a serious look in the mirror around here. You play the victims when it involves twitter (only because you are supposed to be competing with them, while using their platform and then crying censorship - LOL more irony) and then use the same tactics around here yourselves, by exerting your own influence and power in a very similar way - and then saying it's different. It's easy to pretend you are talking to a bunch of morons who don't know any better, but alas - this is simply not true.
So please tell me, any more rules that I need to abide by to appease the hive elites? Rules that you make for everyone else, and then exempt yourselves from? Guess what - I don't need your rules, or the rules handed down to me by some self-appointed governing body who has a large influence and stake at their disposal on a so-called decentralised platform.
Imposing your will over everyone else, has nothing to do with decentralisation. Neither does making rules that suit your own interests on both a short and long term basis.
For someone who has so much influence and power on this platform, you have a serious lack of understanding of what decentralised systems/networks are, or more importantly should be all about. You have completely owned yourself with your own words here, so thanks.
If you really care so much about "over-rewarding" or an unfair distribution of rewards from some stakeholders - whilst excluding yourself and your circles from that same dilemma, then go ahead and burn the ninja mined stake, that you literally make a living from.
I highly doubt that will ever happen though. Too much entitlement for the few special people who rely on it. That forbidden fruit is way too delicious and tasty.
I find it interesting that you and I have disagreed, yet we neither flagged the other for it.
Also, props. I appreciate your insightful comments.
So you disapprove of folks using their stake as they will? After all, that's all they're doing with their votes.
That's the exact justification you apply to your own flags: you can use your stake as you will.
What you're doing is defunding the Hive marketing department, which is what content creators are.
You are strongly discouraging folks from coming here that follow Josh elsewhere when they see this crap.
I do not believe your feeble justifications.
I do believe you and your ilk are protecting your access to the rewards pool.
I reckon you should stop and let Hive grow.
Yes I'm really worried about the reward pool, I've posted maybe 20 times this year even though I have access to same sized autovotes on whatever I post.
Have you seen Josh advertise Hive somewhere? I think the lack of engagement on his posts proves that he doesn't give a shit about Hive as long as the free money keeps on coming from sharing his stuff that's obviously created for other platforms.
Oh no, his fanbase that never came will see the downvotes he's getting!
Exactly same thing with downvotes.
The most rewards go where there is consensus they should go, not disagreement.
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.
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.