RE: Why should anyone have the power to reduce another person's pay-out?
Appeal to authority is not an argument.
Womens vote, black rights..
You may not agree with how it works and that's fine but you being here is > purely voluntary....
I'm not appealing to authority. I'm explaining how the system was designed to work. It's a computer program. Being where you are born is NOT "purely voluntary" for many reasons. Posting on steemit absolutely is and there are many competing platforms where you can speak.
Since when does someone I have never known have the power to act in >way to take away assets given to me and by others? - and indoing so, takes >away someone else's freedom of choice - to give me something.
Bit.... authoritarian, eh?
You think there's moral defense to do such a thing?
That's not how any of this works. Your first mistake is claiming ownership of something that isn't yours. An upvote is merely that...a VOTE. It influences your rewards, it does not decide them. It is not a gift. If someone wants to give you a gift then they can just transfer steem directly to you. POTENTIAL payouts are NOT yours. It is not yours until the payout happens. Voting is not over until payout and that's when your reward is determined. Nothing can be taken before then because nothing has been given. Perhaps steemit should just stop showing POTENTIAL payouts. Problem solved.
And to clarify, when someone is voting for you, they are not giving you anything from their account. They are voting on how much of a fixed rewards pool you will get at the end of the payout period. The same amount of rewards get paid out every day. If you get more everybody else gets less and vice versa. When someone flags you they are saying they think everybody else is deserving of a greater reward and you are deserving of less.
...it is if that action against me results in me going hungry.
It affects the freedom to speak.
Just as upvotes give me the freedom to express my truth..and still eat.
This plainly the case - unless you are a naive ideologue that can't get past >theory and live in the real world, with real choices...like Stalin for example..
Spin it however you want but you are not now nor will you ever be ENTITLED to be paid for your speech. That has NOTHING to do with what freedom of speech is about. Freedom of speech is about the government not having the authority to prevent you from speaking. It's not forcing someone else to pay you to speak. You can get a job, express truth, and eat. It isn't hard. By your logic if no one is upvoting your nonsense then your freedom of speech is being infringed because you aren't getting paid. Why the sense of entitlement?
Plus your upvote for one post means all the others got less so you ARE affecting their ability to eat as you put it. An upvote of one post is effectively a flag (albeit a relatively small one) on everybody else.
Totally subjective depending entirely on the SP of an account holders- >that's using economic authority - ergo it's authoritarian.
Subjective, yes. The rest is more nonsense. Can you provide a source for your definition of "authoritarian". Because here's what I find when I look it up: "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."
Your obedience is not required here. Your personal freedom is not infringed here. The government is not involved here. If your behavior here is motivated by money then that is on you.
So why does your response sound so....so...Kim Jong-un -ish?
Selective hearing. Poor understanding of authoritarianism. Poor understanding of Steemit and the Steem blockchain. Poor understanding of free markets. Probably other reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said.
This whole thing is just a troll isn't it?
Authoritarian :
autocratic, despotic, dictatorial, totalitarian, tyrannic, tyrannical.
..big accounts downvoting just because they can , IS authoritarian behavior.
so twiiter fuckbuk and the de-platforming gab is not a free speech issue?
Because it's not government? Seriously?
Absolutely, as I said to you already.... I agree.
Not in the slightest.
I'm not trolling, just asking you your position.
Just have to agree to disagree I guess. No harm is coming to you or authority is being use against you. Again, you are not entitled to anything here. Votes or flags from whales or minnows all do the same thing fundamentally. They decide how a fixed and limited rewards pool is distributed among blockchain participants. It's true bigger stakeholders have more to say but then they have more to gain or lose. Fundamentally this is what drives demand for steem and makes it worth anything. Take that away and all your steem is worthless anyway.
Not in any historically understood way, no. You are not entitled to speak on someone else's platform any more than you are entitled to enter under my roof and say what you want. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are private platforms. You aren't entitled to speak there any more than you are entitled to have a book published by a publishing company or your article printed in a newspaper. It IS censorship by those platforms but it isn't a freedom of speech issue. Those are businesses and how they censor their platforms or not is a business decision driven no doubt in large part by advertising dollars. This is a free market behavior. You are still free to speak your mind and there are plenty of places to do that. Here for instance. Regardless of whether or not someone flags you. Just as you have the freedom to say what you want, businesses have the right to make decisions about their business so long as they aren't violating your rights. Censoring YOU on THEIR platform is not violating YOUR rights. Forcing them to publish what you say would be violating their rights.
As long as a free market exists then market activity will decide the success of failure of facebook, twitter, et al and it will do this to some degree based on their behavior. When enough people get fed up with them, new platforms will overtake them in popularity. History suggests they won't be top dogs forever. Remember Myspace? Friendster? You say you have an understanding of free markets but all this is how they work.
My hope in all of this is people will wise up and not put all their eggs in one basket and we will start seeing more distributed platforms. Facebook, youtube and the others will ultimately destroy themselves with their behavior if they keep it up.
Yup - agree to disagree is probably best...
It is actually impossible to have a free market with a central bank deciding the value and supply of money.
As in mathematically Impossible.
...there hasn't been a free market in 100's of years.
There's never been a completely free market and there probably never will be. You aren't going to find purity in any system. I agree that it is not as free as it could be but there is still a lot of freedom within it. However, the solution is not more government interference, it's less. Eliminating the central bank would be good. The government stepping in to decide how speech should be regulated nor not on twitter would be bad. I want markets to be more free, not less. In any case, central banking doesn't have a whole lot to do directly with the market in social media.