You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Witness Vote Removed: @nextgencrypto. It’s a Shame that Some Individuals are Flagging Content for Mere Difference of Opinion.
From this point on if we all use as much voting power as we have to support anyone facing censorship, (even though we don't have as much in our wallets), we have the numbers and we can come back from this.
There's a dolt down below who voices his 'superior' opinion. lol. You'd appreciate the quote I replied to the person who commented to them-
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain
I keep sneaking on, but I have family to attend to, I'll reply to your other comments when I get home :)
Take care - they have been going hard out and have a $2.50 wallet now so you are picking a fight with a whale!
Well said @sift666!
Together we stand divided we fall.
I love that! Isn't that what Steemit is all about? Or supposed to be?
You're right, and you're wrong. Theoretically, there is the stake available to counter this censorship.
Practically speaking, even with the furor over @michelle.gent's flagging added to this, given the fractured nature of the community, many of whom are more focused on their personal rewards than on contributing to the community, I do not expect such a rally.
I am in, whether there's a rally around it or not - but I'm not here for rewards, rather for the community of censorship free society.
I'm prolly about to get flagged to oblivion myself, now, as I have spoken forthrightly, and strongly, directly to the flaggots who've undertaken these outrages.
So be it. I've never spent a satoshi of Steem, and had no intentions of doing so anyway.
I'll be sad about my rep, though =/
"rather for the community of censorship free society."
Sadly, if the creators had wanted a censorship-free society on Steemit, they should not have allowed for the ability to censor to be built into the platform.
In the white paper flagging is clearly described as necessary to allow a decentralized community to control spam, plagiarism, and such toxic simulacra of free speech.
They further describe how the community can resist the kinds of censorship considered here, and flag wars were born.
However, their calculations considered that 30% of rewards, and thus stake, and thus VP, would inure to the general community, and probably less than 1% of rewards actually do today.
(the author rewards chart dates from just prior to HF19, but is probably applicable today)
Thanks to @arcange for these charts!
Rather than a small or moderately sized group of folks being able to succeed in preventing abusive flagging, even should 10,000 krill rise up to try under current conditions, they would be unable.
The oligarchical concentration of rewards has rendered flags nuclear weapons in the hands of whales, and less than pea-shooters in the hands of krill.
This wasn't the stated intention of the devs.
I was under the impression it started off as a war against bots votes. ( of which I wholeheartedly support, btw)
It seems to have turned into something much darker...
Never mind, I'll wont be staying quiet for anyone. Never have, never will!
I would practically die laughing were the bots like @yougotflagged waging war on bots.
The irony!