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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.