I respect Dan and Ned and what they have accomplished here and I've read everything Dan has written with regard to Down Voting. If we compare Steemit/Steem to a share holders meeting simply due to steem power being vests then such meetings have AYE and NAY votes. Yet that is not really what this is. Yes, we have shares yet in practice this does not resemble a share holder's meeting. I just returned from such a meeting that happened for the company I work for over the past few days.

Source: twitter.com

I returned today to resume my participation in steem and steemit to see another long time member with a lot more steem power than I have calling it quits on steemit. I've read Dan's words on Censorship and had time to go off for several days and seriously think about them.

I've advocated for not having a down vote at all. Dan has responded to me and my ideals and indicated I might as well ask for world peace. I kind of gave in when he stated this. Why did I give into this? Did he and Ned give in when people said Anarchistic ideas and Austrian Economics would not work and are a Utopian dream? No, they decided to actually do something about it rather than simply talk. They started this grand experiment. Is it right for me to agree simply because Dan believes my positions are a pipe dream and unattainable? Is that me giving into an Appeal to Authority? Would that be me failing to do what they did? They decided to do something. I am not in a position to reshape Steemit.com or make another website on the steem blockchain at this time. There are others that are.

I am going to TRY really hard this time to reach out and explain my position. If Dan and Ned do not believe it is realistic they have built the tool upon which others COULD attempt this vision. It actually does not harm them if these other experiments on the steem blockchain are attempted. They and we still benefit. That is another beautiful aspect of the blockchain.

Down voting is a cancer on any site that permits them. It makes the environment innately hostile. Some people feel they need the right to cast their vote counter to others. This becomes a hard stance. I at one point held a similar stance. Something felt wrong.

Source: quickmeme.com

I've come to believe that steem and steemit are very new ideas. I fully believe they can function without a down vote. There does need to be a way to flag a post as being plagiarsm, abuse, or even spam. This could be simply a reporting function that if abused could ding someones reputation. A reputation system has proven to be important. That does not need to extend to flagging/down voting for disagreement. The blockchain cannot be censored, though sites can be. As with a free market the owners of a facility should have the right to refuse to offer service to people at any time. This alone is justification for down voting when disagreeing. Steemit.com could be viewed as the shop owned by Dan and Ned. They could prefer this method.

Source: safetysign.com

The blockchain does however support the ability for people to build other shops. There could be many such experiments. I know of numerous such experiments underway. If down voting remains as it is I do not expect steemit to remain the preeminent site for the blockchain. The hostility is present and it is not needed.

So how would it work without a down vote for disagreement

It's actually quite simple. You can look to the free market for your answers.

In the free market I am free to do business. If people want to do business with me they come and purchase my goods or services. There is no action in free market equivalent to a down vote. Those that want to purchase from me freely may do so. Those who do not simply don't come to my shop or ask for my services.

Source: documentarywire.com

Not coming to my shop or asking for my services is the same as not voting. Voting is the same as someone paying for my services and showing that there is a demand.

In the free market if you want to pay me for my goods or services there is no way for you to go cancel out the demand of another person. You may only exercise your own demand.

The act of down voting is cancellation of demand. It is not needed. The demand is still there, someone just chose to cancel out the rights of another.

Source: bu.edu

Dan recently used examples in history of ostracizing, and shunning type situations in history. These do exist and they do work, yet they also are not equivalent to a down vote. They are equivalent to someone not voting, and not giving someone else attention. Down Vote is the equivalent of someone forcefully stopping others from dealing with an individual. This is not ostracizing, or shunning since those things involve the people that participate in voluntarily shunning someone. If someone in their community chose not to go along with the decision then they would not be able to stop them without using force.

Source: www.blogtalkradio.com

There are positive and negative forces. It could be viewed that demand for something is force. That type of force is typically assumed to be positive. When anarchists say something like "Good ideas do not require force" they are not speaking about positive forces. They are speaking about hostile forces, negative force, that cancels out the rights of another person to voluntarily decide their own fate.

Source: quickmeme.com

Vests and Investment

If I realize that steem power is brilliant and it gives me the ability to award ideas I like more money with my votes, that is a very strong motivator for reinvesting in steem power. I spend time, effort, money, or perhaps all of those to increase my steem power so I can better spread my curation and support for the system via my vote. So what good does that do me if I get to say the ability to award $10.00 per vote if another person can come along and down vote the things I support and make them worth $0.00 or perhaps a fraction of what I wanted to award someone?

Source: steemit.com

How does that resemble a free market? How does that resemble Austrian Economics? How does that resemble anarchism?

What can you do with a down vote?

Let's not worry about plagiarism, spam, and abuse as I've already agreed there needs to be a ways to flag and report such things. There also needs to be a way to deal with people who false flag. Yet, those are the only things I see anything resembling a down vote as having a purpose. Let's consider what you can do with a down vote...

Source: quickmeme.com

• You don't like a person. So you can down vote them regardless of any reading of what they wrote. You can do this purely out of spite.
• You can down vote someone you believe down voted you for bad reasons out of spite. You can escalate things if you want.
• I may like to talk about the mating practices of badgers. You and your friends could come down vote that topic into oblivion so that I may have a lot of difficulty finding such topics. Why? You don't like them. It can be said it is not censorship as it is still in the blockchain. Yes, I do have the technical skills that if I wish to circumvent the view I have into the blockchain and come at it another way I can. Yet that does not describe most users. It is much like the government choosing to censor certain topics on the internet does not stop people from creating the dark web. So if down voting something to oblivion here because you disagree is not censorship then I guess the government is not censoring things they disagree with either, as we can still use the dark web or create other ways to talk about them. In fact, if this is true then there really is no such thing as censorship.
• You can limit the free association of others due to your disapproval.
• You can pretend it is a board meeting and every post is a shareholder's vote. Yet that is not how this place is setup, and is not the perception it gives. So that is likely not how it will be perceived by others.

Source: quickmeme.com

What can you do with an up vote?

You can support the things you are interested in. It will balance out based upon the quantity of interest shown by people. This is how a free market operates. If every time I write about the mating habits of badgers I get 10 or 12 people up voting me and that is it then I as the author get to decide if that is sufficient reason to keep discussing the idea. Perhaps that is enough. Those 10 people and I will certainly not be making much money but the interest may be there. Whether there are 10,000 people who don't want to read about the mating habits of badgers or not is irrelevant. Those 10,000 people will be up voting other things. The quantity of people interested in other things will likely be way higher than the 10 people discussing my topic. It allows people to pursue their interests, and it let's the market do what markets do.

Source: writers-village.org

The things with more demand will rise to the top, yet it will stop the hostile nature of people silencing the interests of others.

Private Shop

If steemit.com is taking the private shop approach and wishes to be able to choose whom it does and does not serve then leaving the down vote is a really good way to forcefully steer people towards the door. It is far more forceful than shunning and ostracizing. It silences the voice of the target, where as shunning and ostracizing are you simply choosing not to share your voice with them.

Source: www.mysecuritysign.com

If this is a private shop that would be good to know. I might seriously consider backing people and trying some alternative SHOPS for the steem blockchain.

Source: www.freerepublic.com

I do believe in steem, I believe in the mission, and I believe in Dan's thoughtful blog post on why he does what he does. I am taking a cue from him. This is not the same as asking for World Peace. This is the same as asking for a free market. Let people show demand for what they want. I have never heard of anti-demand in a free market.

Source: www.slideshare.net

Hybrid situation

Steemit does have some shareholder properties, yet it clearly is a place the free market could thrive. The shareholder part is purely to secure the currency and allow us to invest. Investment gives us a way to extend our reach for things we like and are interested in. This makes investment very appealing. If others can silence the reason for that investment then it becomes less attractive.

Source: www.learningsharepoint.com

I do not believe approaching steemit blog posts as a boardroom is the correct approach. I am willing to debate the issue, I am willing to change my mind. In fact, for awhile I thought Dan had changed my mind. Yet, seeing people still leaving and angered over the power a down vote has over their voice here is still very much getting to me.

I will tell you Dan that I think you are right about a great many things. I do not think you are right about the need for a down vote beyond the need to flag spam, plagiarism, and abuse.

I do realize that programming something to deal with this would be difficult. Yet you yourself have proposed a solution.

Source: linkedin.com

Constructive Criticism

What if the flag could only be used for plagiarism, spam and abuse? What if people could flag a flag as a false flag and if enough people did the false flag would be removed and a reputation penalty applied for false flagging?

Is there any reason beyond that to ding a person's reputation? Are people not free to speak their mind as long as they are not doing one of those things?

It seems like this is very doable, and much easier than World Peace. It also would effectively eliminate what right now can seem like negative force, aggression, and hostility.

Source: quotesgram.com

It was seeing THIS post that inspired me to write this again. I was saddened and moved by the post made by @tuck-fheman.

EDIT: I am going to link to other relevant posts as I stumble across them...
@tuck-fheman - Just Downvote it, mute it, and walk away, is that a reasonable solution?
@lennex - A solution to censorship on steemit (You won't like what follows)
@proglobyte - No Vote Lists And Brute Force Downvoting - Gagging Kills Meritocracy