I was going to give him the opportunity to remove them first. If I flag, then he may start another flagging campaign against my posts as he did in the past. I'm not super influential, but some people in the cryptocurrency space do follow my blog and having to explain why my posts are flagged (again) is not helpful for Steem. Bernie doesn't seem to like me, and that's fine but I'd rather not give him an excuse or justification for actions which (IMO) harm the network. I know of at least a couple investors who have told me they abandoned the platform or will not invest here because of (they say) the demonstrated influence of high SP accounts to "attack" (as they put it) other accounts. Another flagging campaign is not helpful for the value of STEEM or Steem.
I really do not like that some people on the Steem blockchain get to be in a separate class from the rest of us. They have enough Steem Power to do whatever they want, even if it has the potential to lower the value of this network for everyone.
That said, whether or not I like it, that is the reality of how this system works under the token distribution we have. I can tilt at windmills and fight with flags, drawing even more attention to the problem, or I can work with what we have to try and not make things worse. Bernie isn't my enemy. I don't really have any. I do want to see the systems improve to functionally limit how much (from my perspective) individual accounts can cause harm. I don't currently have a solution (though maybe SMT Oracles might play a role in the future).
Strong witnesses are scared of losing support because of the way the electoral system works. It's a bit the same as the contents, in the way as it's much easier to just farm votes slowly because everyone has 30 votes and often votes to spare, rather than confront people with a large stake, and risk people thinking you are too confrontational and lose votes because bernie will go after you calling you a homophobe or something.
So again, we can see witnesses not taking actions in things that would serve the health of the community as a whole, purely out of self-greed and protecting their current position.
Fixing the exploits and abuses isn't only done via code changes for STEEM, the community has the power to stop things from happening collectively (remember how @steemsports ended), but it hasn't happened in a long time and considering abusers own a larger and larger % of the stake with time, I doubt it will ever happen again
Edit: Don't worry luke I still love you, I understand the position
I'm not scared. I'm attempting to be practical. See my comment for details. I generally don't look at who votes for me and I doubt bernie does, so that line of thinking is silly in this case. Those who do (to some degree) might support me because I've stood up to Bernie before and got three months of flagging for it (scheduled to happen in the last 12 hours before payout back when that couldn't be corrected by more upvotes). I'm still here. Some respect me for that. I also have to recognize that period of time was not healthy for Steem for any investors who were following me and interested in Steem. They want nothing to do with it now because they see the system as broken with such imbalances of power.
Not everything is "self-greed" or protecting a current position. It's about protecting the value of Steem for everyone and prolonged, prominent flagging to demonstrate its current flaws is really harmful to that value. I think Bernie knows this and uses it as a shield to essentially do whatever he wants. The code, as it stands now, can't stop him without harming all of us in the process.
I've stood up to Bernie before and got three months of flagging for it
So basically you are admitting that if you get beat hard enough, then you will stop confronting the tyrant? He cannot censor everyone. He doesn't even precisely vote to get contents hidden. Also he has the issue of dust votes, and the fact that he cannot revote. If many people keep annoying him then he will just quit. That's MY thinking but I understand that you are scared of losing your audience on steemit (sarcasm).
If many people keep annoying him then he will just quit.
In the two years I've been here, I have not seen this happen.
My "tilt at windmills" reference has to do with fighting imaginary enemies. Bernie is just Bernie. There are many in the world like him. They aren't going to change (or if they are, very few of them). From one perspective, they are part of an evolutionary stable strategy:
Building better systems is the only way I know of to improve things. We have to keep working to improve the Steem blockchain to incentivize the actions we want and discouraged those we don't.
"I've stood up to Bernie before and got three months of flagging for it" What do you think the effect of this would be on a new user? Down voting is not even close to the same as upvoting. Every new user lives in fear of making a down vote on crap content because of a fear of retribution.
Check the post I referenced in my original post. In that post, I was calling on whales to downvote, not new users. Their small Steem Power doesn't do much unless they have larger accounts following their voting trails or somehow using their votes as indicators of what they should also be doing.
I'm not defending bernie's flagging because, IMO, it can often be inconsistent, irrational, and emotionally driven. I don't understand it, though I have tried to make sense of it many times. Either way, it is what it is. The current system can't stop large accounts from expressing their preferences with either huge upvotes (which may people absolutely love bernie for) or huge downvotes.
I was going to give him the opportunity to remove them first. If I flag, then he may start another flagging campaign against my posts as he did in the past. I'm not super influential, but some people in the cryptocurrency space do follow my blog and having to explain why my posts are flagged (again) is not helpful for Steem. Bernie doesn't seem to like me, and that's fine but I'd rather not give him an excuse or justification for actions which (IMO) harm the network. I know of at least a couple investors who have told me they abandoned the platform or will not invest here because of (they say) the demonstrated influence of high SP accounts to "attack" (as they put it) other accounts. Another flagging campaign is not helpful for the value of STEEM or Steem.
I really do not like that some people on the Steem blockchain get to be in a separate class from the rest of us. They have enough Steem Power to do whatever they want, even if it has the potential to lower the value of this network for everyone.
That said, whether or not I like it, that is the reality of how this system works under the token distribution we have. I can tilt at windmills and fight with flags, drawing even more attention to the problem, or I can work with what we have to try and not make things worse. Bernie isn't my enemy. I don't really have any. I do want to see the systems improve to functionally limit how much (from my perspective) individual accounts can cause harm. I don't currently have a solution (though maybe SMT Oracles might play a role in the future).
Btw Thank you.
You're welcome :) ... sorry about bernie the tyrant flagging your post.
Strong witnesses are scared of losing support because of the way the electoral system works. It's a bit the same as the contents, in the way as it's much easier to just farm votes slowly because everyone has 30 votes and often votes to spare, rather than confront people with a large stake, and risk people thinking you are too confrontational and lose votes because bernie will go after you calling you a homophobe or something.
So again, we can see witnesses not taking actions in things that would serve the health of the community as a whole, purely out of self-greed and protecting their current position.
Fixing the exploits and abuses isn't only done via code changes for STEEM, the community has the power to stop things from happening collectively (remember how @steemsports ended), but it hasn't happened in a long time and considering abusers own a larger and larger % of the stake with time, I doubt it will ever happen again
Edit: Don't worry luke I still love you, I understand the position
I'm not scared. I'm attempting to be practical. See my comment for details. I generally don't look at who votes for me and I doubt bernie does, so that line of thinking is silly in this case. Those who do (to some degree) might support me because I've stood up to Bernie before and got three months of flagging for it (scheduled to happen in the last 12 hours before payout back when that couldn't be corrected by more upvotes). I'm still here. Some respect me for that. I also have to recognize that period of time was not healthy for Steem for any investors who were following me and interested in Steem. They want nothing to do with it now because they see the system as broken with such imbalances of power.
Not everything is "self-greed" or protecting a current position. It's about protecting the value of Steem for everyone and prolonged, prominent flagging to demonstrate its current flaws is really harmful to that value. I think Bernie knows this and uses it as a shield to essentially do whatever he wants. The code, as it stands now, can't stop him without harming all of us in the process.
That's my current thinking anyway.
I've stood up to Bernie before and got three months of flagging for itSo basically you are admitting that if you get beat hard enough, then you will stop confronting the tyrant? He cannot censor everyone. He doesn't even precisely vote to get contents hidden. Also he has the issue of dust votes, and the fact that he cannot revote. If many people keep annoying him then he will just quit. That's MY thinking but I understand that you are scared of losing your audience on steemit (sarcasm).
In the two years I've been here, I have not seen this happen.
My "tilt at windmills" reference has to do with fighting imaginary enemies. Bernie is just Bernie. There are many in the world like him. They aren't going to change (or if they are, very few of them). From one perspective, they are part of an evolutionary stable strategy:
Building better systems is the only way I know of to improve things. We have to keep working to improve the Steem blockchain to incentivize the actions we want and discouraged those we don't.
"I've stood up to Bernie before and got three months of flagging for it" What do you think the effect of this would be on a new user? Down voting is not even close to the same as upvoting. Every new user lives in fear of making a down vote on crap content because of a fear of retribution.
Check the post I referenced in my original post. In that post, I was calling on whales to downvote, not new users. Their small Steem Power doesn't do much unless they have larger accounts following their voting trails or somehow using their votes as indicators of what they should also be doing.
I'm not defending bernie's flagging because, IMO, it can often be inconsistent, irrational, and emotionally driven. I don't understand it, though I have tried to make sense of it many times. Either way, it is what it is. The current system can't stop large accounts from expressing their preferences with either huge upvotes (which may people absolutely love bernie for) or huge downvotes.