Would these millions (and millions!) of The Soul's fans observing The Soul in action now be a little confused as to how The Soul is so heavily censored yet shining so bright, all at the same time?
To be clear, there have been times when a few of my posts were number one one 3speak's view count, number one on the Posh Twitter stats and number one on PeakD's view count. The outer world pays attention to the topics I cover in large numbers. The logic you are using that, in your mind, 'not enough' people look at my content might just have something to do with it being regularly downvoted.
An irony of the logic that says that my posts don't get 'enough' comments for... the subjective preference of some people, is that:
a) This and similar posts have 5-10 times the number of comments (at least) of all other posts on Hive at present.
b) There is no direct connection between the stake used to upvote posts and the number of comments being left anyway. Stakeholders have the capacity to point rewards and drive exposure to posts via trending - by design. Even if that results in posts in trending that aren't as engaged as others (of which there are often many that don't get downvoted), it's still the stakeholder's choice to upvote them and put them there.
In terms of 'censorship', as I pointed out in a previous post on the topic and as others have pointed out already in the comments under this post - the actual definition of censorship is deliberate suppression of information. This does not need to include total blockage of access to the information and can (and does) take the form of reach restriction on social channels (among other forms of control). Anyone who uses silicon valley social networks for anything of real value to humans has, at this point, experienced reach restriction as a result (whether they know it or not). The very long list of highly cited and respected doctors and scientists that have been blacklisted by silicon valley is a testament to that. Are they completely impossible to access online? Some may be, but generally they aren't. None the less, the censorship of their content dramatically limits the number of people that can hear them and that can therefore also support their work.
The idea that anyone questioning downvoting is just a greedy rewards pool rapist is extremely hypocritical, since the entire purpose of the rewards pool is to essentially empower content creators to make more, according to the subjective preference of the community. Obviously, content creators are going to want to access as much support as they can - ideally without being pushy or going against the wishes of the audience. Contrary to the assumptions of a minority of people here, I personally don't want to take rewards from a pool where people don't want me to have it and don't want my content.. I would just go somewhere else.
However, I have put years of my time into helping to build Steem and Hive and I still hold the vision that it can be a beacon of free thought, free speech, open mindedness, decentralisation and generally a human support service. So, I am here looking to build audiences. Clearly, since I regularly receive a lot of voluntary upvotes, there are plenty of people who value what I do - so I am still here. If the upvotes are removed and no-one comments, then there would be no point in me being here, but that is not the case.
I wasn't even being serious. That was a Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson reference that somehow, miraculously, turned into a speech about something requiring a thorough examination and essay style response. The man complimented my ability to bring excitement, so I thought that was an invitation to continue messing around. Next thing you know, he's saying all these things to me and I'm not even sure why.
the actual definition of censorship is deliberate suppression of information.
So why did you send his comment to the bottom? Seems suppressive. I hoped you would stick to your guns and wouldn't downvote it but this proves an even bigger point.
If you are talking about the 'boring' comment, I have already replied to your previous comment on the same topic. I didn't send his comment anywhere and no reach was lost - despite the comment clearly adding nothing of value except to snarkey people wanting to snark.
I was referring to the many people looking at this page via the internet.
Would these millions (and millions!) of The Soul's fans observing The Soul in action now be a little confused as to how The Soul is so heavily censored yet shining so bright, all at the same time?
To be clear, there have been times when a few of my posts were number one one 3speak's view count, number one on the Posh Twitter stats and number one on PeakD's view count. The outer world pays attention to the topics I cover in large numbers. The logic you are using that, in your mind, 'not enough' people look at my content might just have something to do with it being regularly downvoted.
An irony of the logic that says that my posts don't get 'enough' comments for... the subjective preference of some people, is that:
a) This and similar posts have 5-10 times the number of comments (at least) of all other posts on Hive at present.
b) There is no direct connection between the stake used to upvote posts and the number of comments being left anyway. Stakeholders have the capacity to point rewards and drive exposure to posts via trending - by design. Even if that results in posts in trending that aren't as engaged as others (of which there are often many that don't get downvoted), it's still the stakeholder's choice to upvote them and put them there.
In terms of 'censorship', as I pointed out in a previous post on the topic and as others have pointed out already in the comments under this post - the actual definition of censorship is deliberate suppression of information. This does not need to include total blockage of access to the information and can (and does) take the form of reach restriction on social channels (among other forms of control). Anyone who uses silicon valley social networks for anything of real value to humans has, at this point, experienced reach restriction as a result (whether they know it or not). The very long list of highly cited and respected doctors and scientists that have been blacklisted by silicon valley is a testament to that. Are they completely impossible to access online? Some may be, but generally they aren't. None the less, the censorship of their content dramatically limits the number of people that can hear them and that can therefore also support their work.
The idea that anyone questioning downvoting is just a greedy rewards pool rapist is extremely hypocritical, since the entire purpose of the rewards pool is to essentially empower content creators to make more, according to the subjective preference of the community. Obviously, content creators are going to want to access as much support as they can - ideally without being pushy or going against the wishes of the audience. Contrary to the assumptions of a minority of people here, I personally don't want to take rewards from a pool where people don't want me to have it and don't want my content.. I would just go somewhere else.
However, I have put years of my time into helping to build Steem and Hive and I still hold the vision that it can be a beacon of free thought, free speech, open mindedness, decentralisation and generally a human support service. So, I am here looking to build audiences. Clearly, since I regularly receive a lot of voluntary upvotes, there are plenty of people who value what I do - so I am still here. If the upvotes are removed and no-one comments, then there would be no point in me being here, but that is not the case.
Well yeah, if I sit here and have a conversation with you and several others who want to speak to me, of course the amount of comments will increase.
Try not to take all the credit. I'm a human, not just some number that only exists to make you look good or feel important.
There's no real need to overly explain yourself either. This wasn't a job interview.
He does that, if you don't always read and reply he'll say you've gone "silent" to defend his narrative.
I wasn't even being serious. That was a Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson reference that somehow, miraculously, turned into a speech about something requiring a thorough examination and essay style response. The man complimented my ability to bring excitement, so I thought that was an invitation to continue messing around. Next thing you know, he's saying all these things to me and I'm not even sure why.
So why did you send his comment to the bottom? Seems suppressive. I hoped you would stick to your guns and wouldn't downvote it but this proves an even bigger point.
If you are talking about the 'boring' comment, I have already replied to your previous comment on the same topic. I didn't send his comment anywhere and no reach was lost - despite the comment clearly adding nothing of value except to snarkey people wanting to snark.
Your downvote, or something else, seems to have censored the comment to the bottom of the comment list despite sorting by rewards.
The 'Boring' comment is at the top of the list of comments when the comments are sorted by Reward level: