You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steemit Inc now censors posts from the UI

in #steem3 years ago

When the #irredeemables list first appeared on Github, I vehemently opposed that undertaking of censorship, insisting that the excuses made in support of that action would eventually result in wider censorship.

Sadly, this has been proved today.

I cannot more strongly urge that our community keep this demonstration of how censorship is begun and inevitably grows wherever it is allowed to take root. Amongst the improvements Hive is undertaking to benefit the decentralized community migrating to it tomorrow the elimination of this vector for censorship Github lists are must be deprecated and no longer possible in the future.

As the keeper of a blacklist intended to censor accounts, you are the last person I intend to depend on to resist censorship. I hope you understand that this is no insult, nor indictment of you.

It's just unreasonable to depend on a censor to protect me from censorship.

Thanks!

Sort:  

When the #irredeemables list first appeared on Github, I vehemently opposed that undertaking of censorship, insisting that the excuses made in support of that action would eventually result in wider censorship.

The irredeemables is not my project, but I do support it and taking it over as we move on to Hive. Irredeemables only blocks users who are extreme cases who spam hundreds and thousands of comments a day, posts endless dick pics on peoples posts, or threaten people. It is never used because a difference of opinion, or disagreement. There are many users on the irredeemables that were spamming so much it was causing technical issues.

As the keeper of a blacklist intended to censor accounts, you are the last person I intend to depend on to resist censorship. I hope you understand that this is no insult, nor indictment of you.

As for my blacklist, it does not censor anyone, it is a merely a signal to users that this user has engaged activities the community disapproves of. No where does it censor them. The blacklist was original developed to prevent bad actors from using bid bots.

Neither of these tools are used for censorship. You can twist things all you like, but the facts are available for everyone to see.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

It's just unreasonable to depend on a censor to protect me from censorship.

I will be the first to protect freedom of speech, but don't come crying to me when someone starts to spam the platform so much it exceeds 100% of comment volume of the entire community, or when they start spamming dick pics all over people's posts, or start making threats on people's lives.

How would you feel if your blog was filled with comments like this? https://steempeak.com/@cemalbaba/comments

If I was the censor you claim I am, I would have blacklisted and flagged the crap out of you ages ago. Rarely are your comments anything short of attacks on my character and actions. Have I though?

Bernie has left thousands of similar pics of his bowel movements all across the blogs on this blockchain, but you made no move to, nor speak in support of, taking any action to censor them, despite every argument you make in support of the #irredeemables list applying to Bernie more than it does to those on the list.

When your argument changes because of the size of the wallet, you cease to be honest.

I speak factually and refrain from ad hominems when disagreeing with your policies. I also plainly state when I am in agreement with you, or reckon you're speaking the truth. You might have noticed I vote your witness. That's not something I will do without good cause, but I don't think you understand the principles you think you're supporting.

If I have ever made a false statement regarding you, as soon as I discovered it was false I retracted it and stated what the facts were. If you censor me for that, you can no longer claim to be only preventing spam, plagiarism, or other such garbage on the blockchain, and prove that you are simply opinion flagging.

I don't think you are opinion flagging when you censor spammers, plagiarists, and similar trash. When I have discussed it with you in the past, you have supported your flags with evidence that I agreed justified your actions. But that doesn't mean you aren't censoring those accounts. That's why flagging is undertaken: it causes those accounts to no longer produce that content. It is effective censorship.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't waste your time doing it.

Stand up and claim your legacy like an honest man proud of his actions should. I know you have done much to prevent spam and plagiarism from polluting the blockchain, and you are proud of that legacy.

The fact is that legacy is censorship, and that's what you do primarily, now that your bidbot is proved a blight on the blockchain, and you have grudgingly stopped selling votes for money.

That's who you are, and if that's an attack on your character, it didn't come from me, but from your own actions. This is why I don't think you actually grasp the principles you claim to support. Flagging spammers works because it's censorship.

You also stated above your support for the #irredeemables list, yet refuse to even discuss the fact that if anyone belonged on that list it is Bernie, your benefactor. I find that pandering reprehensible, and, again, you deny you are for censorship even while supporting that list (for approved bad guys, but not those that have money you need) that has no other purpose than censorship.

It must be confusing between your ears. If I point out inconvenient facts, it's just in the hope you can simplify your mental gymnastics, and be worthy of my witness support. I know you don't care about my vote, because it's worthless. But I care about my vote, because it's all I have.

I wouldn't vote for you if I thought you were opinion flagging, or didn't think you were cleaning up the blockchain. That doesn't mean you aren't censoring spammers. It means I think it's the right thing to do. Unlike the #irredeemables list.

That's just a gift to Bernie.

I don't get where you and your ilk think Bernie is my benefactor. I've done two things with Bernie, he leased me Steem power for upmyvote and I worked with him on the MadCurator. The first I paid thousands a week to cover that lease, like I would with any other lease, the 2nd I got nothing from and put a lot of time and resources in out of pocket.

You regurgitating the same bullshit from others. I have no partner, benefactor, or anyone here, I have always been on my own here. I've paid for services (like delegation) I have used like anyone else. No one gave me shit here except shit.

I am not repeating anyone elses words, these are my own thoughts.

Also, you're dodging numerous other matters I reckon of more relevance. If it would get you to address all my other points, I concede the only evidence I have for them being your benefactor is they vote your witness, they have lots of stake, and you dodge any comparison between them and all other spammers.

Ban Bernie's bowel movements. Then you'll be consistent regarding your stance on spam. You seem far too hesitant to speak consistently on issues central to your activities where Bernie is concerned.

Bernie hasn't voted my witness in ages, it was only when Justin Sun took over the chain he voted me. You should do some research, and I'm a top 20 a lot of people vote my witness. That's pretty stupid evidence, asinine, and in fact libel.

I haven't seen Bernie spamming poop every where.

The blacklist was original developed to prevent bad actors from using bid bots.

And that is why the integrity of your blacklists remains largely questionable because you still have people who were erstwhile bid bot abusers on it even though the bots are now moribund, even though you were one of the largest beneficiaries of the bid bot era. There is a moral question mark in your actions.

You are like a weed dealer (bot owner) who now punishes everyone who took weed in excess (bot abuser) even though the weed dealer profited more from the sales of the weed (votes). There is a moral question mark in your blacklist as long as you have erstwhile bot abusers on your list. I trust this meets you well. Regards sir.

I mostly devote my time to finding abusers, not catering to them. I don't have the time or man power to listen to all the spammers saying they are going to stop or changed ways when 98% of them are lying.

There is a famous legal maxim credited to Benjamin Franklyn that says, it is better for 100 guilty persons to go unpunished than that one innocent person should suffer. You should care about the 2% me thinks.