This is coming from someone who rationalized that downvoting is censorship because it attempts to change behavior based on socioengeneering, that basically anything that impedes the free spontaneous expression is censorship, so that when someone boos at a speaker, they are engaged in censorship, and so that if they say they don't like something and voice that opinion, be it through voting, thumbs down, etc, that's attempting to suppress and inhibit the other person, and that is censorship because they are engaging in and I quote
"Censorship is not necessarily deleting but also inhibiting, prohibiting, putting down and restraining an expression. Flagging is restraining a message by making it less visible with the intent of it being seen by fewer people due to being more difficult to take note of.
Is flagging intentionally inhibiting content?
Definition of Inhibiting: "to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints"
..
So, is flagging censorship? Anyone saying it is not is not disagreeing with me, they are disagreeing with the English language according to academically backed dictionaries.
You literally "reasoned" that because censorship is suppressing and because suppression is inhibiting that any inhibiting is censorship, and when rebuked and pointed out that some "X" are "Y" and some "Y" are "Z" but that doesn't mean all "Z" are "X" you literally said:
This is a ridiculous argument. I mean to be polite, but its so blatantly wrong. The point to this paragraph is nothing more than trying to reduce facts and truth with bewilderment. Its a trick, make the matter sound more complicated than it actually is and the opposing argument appears questionable. This is manipulative debating, like a politician would do.
Let's keep things simple, shall we? If it walks like censorship, and quacks like censorship, its censorship.
Which needs no rebuke as assertion nil explanation is dismissed by an assertion to the contrary, but let me be courteous and extend you another chance:
So anything that is inhibiting free expression is censorship, especially things like disagreement, dislike, negative opinions, as they all are confirmed by your litmus test:
"to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints".
So here you are, a hypocrite in flesh and bones, trying your darnest through mockery, ridicule, sleazy slimy snide remarks" no true hard feelings" to operate to discourage me by the operation of inner psychological AND external social constraints, correct?
Dude, you are trying to bring back an old conversation that I ended because it was exhausting continuing the conversation. We disagree, let's just agree to disagree. I had given you plenty of my time back then and typed out plenty of responses to you. But I do stand by everything I said back then, it was right then and it is right today. You disagree with me, and that's fine.
But I warn you, businesses as brought up the downvote feature as one issue they have with this platform. Many publishers prefer places like Minds.com over Steem because this place is overly investor-centric for a social site. And investors have too much power over the place, able to devalue what they want and punish whoever they want. It has been recognized by many Steemians that whales have the power to make this place pointless to a user. If all your content is going to be shaded and condensed and your images removed, and you're not going to be able to monetize your content, you will not value coming to Steem and posting up content. Steem is its reward system and visibility, and when you reduce to completely eliminate those features, Steem because useless to you.
Let me show you:
I found this quite comical, this guy honusurf believes in utilizing his 20,000 SP to punish people that simply communicate on Steem with someone honusurf dislikes. This shows the evils that exist with downvotes. However, this person's experience on Steem is ironically pointless, and the guy's 20,000 SP is not doing him/her much good because an even more powerful tyrant dislikes honusurf: iflagtrash and abusereports.
This guy's content production days seem to be numbered. Why be on Steem when you could be on a more popular site that also doesn't reward you for content? The value of Steem's reward system is being taken away from honusurf by iflagtrash and abusereports.
Let's look at who else iflagtrash and abuse reports are censoring:
Look at all the people that upvoted that guy's post. The majority of the people liked the content, but Steem's design did not care about what the majority thought. Steem served the wealthy three that disliked it and reduced the value of all the other voters to 0. I can't imagine I would ever want a system like that to grow to the popularity level of Youtube or Twitter, let alone a combination of all the social medias and blogs as is Steem's objective.
I don't like Honusurf, he/she seems like a real jerk. But I still don't believe in people having the subjective power to render their access to Steem's key features pointless.
Well, I'll give you this. It was fun hitting the downvote button on this comment...
Any conversation with you cannot reasonably be labeled "pertinent" in my opinion. The topic of flagging vs. not flagging is important to me, and I am happy to have that conversation with someone that seems reasonable and open-minded. You are not someone I believe has those qualities.
Well, of all the requirements I have for a worthy individual to debate with online I would have to say the ability to competently utilize the space bar on the keyboard is of the utmost importance.