You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Dan needs to be stopped
Disagree.
- Anonymous speech is extremely valuable and has an important role. No one was or could reasonably be fooled by the 'impersonation' here; the intent was obvious (and I upvoted the flagged comment just enough to restore visibility for that reason).
- The points raised aren't entirely without merit, although there are certainly other perspectives on the matter.
I disagree with @smooth and agree with @rainman
For all your apparent reasonableness you do disappoint me sometimes smooth.
This had nothing to do with anonymity and everything to do with trying to muddy the waters and confuse readers.
The only valid point raised is that Dan controls a lot of Steem Power, beyond that it's pure speculation and FUD. The memes are not appropriate, and positing that Dan will "maneuver sycophants into place" is just ridiculous. Dan has shown time and time again that he's willing to not only listen to criticism but also make compromises, unlike kushed and the clique he's part of.
@lukestokes I understand where you are coming from but like I said, it was obviously done as a protest and not an attempt to deceive. Obvious to me at least, and I think everyone.
The idea of some sort of centralized (using signing by an authority which could be optionally attached to an account) or decentralized (using some sort of web of trust) "verified" accounts is an idea worth exploring, but is a subject for a different conversation, as you say.
@smooth: If that account was created as a protest just within this thread, then that's pretty impressive. Based on the conversations I've had with numerous non-native english speakers here, I could see this account being used to cause a lot of harm for people who don't understand who is who.
That said, I should withhold my judgement until actual harm is done from this specific account. It does, however, make me uncomfortable as I've already seen multiple examples of identity theft on Steemit, complete with faked verifications.
The account was created through mining 4 months ago, the same person also registered the larimer account, so we're dealing with a name squatter, something I personally despise. It falls in the same category as patent trolls, leachers trying to make money off the hard work of others.
Couldn't that have been done via a username like "anonymous923842748"? To me, upvoting accounts like this sets a concerning precedent for future impersonations, but I also agree with you that hiding the comment with a flag may not be good either. That said, I almost wanted to flag it as well just so others would see a lower reputation and not get confused about the real identity.
Maybe this is already a problem with accounts like @berniesanders, assuming this platform does take off to threaten the other major social media networks (think verified Twitter accounts). I'm curious how these issues will be resolved in a decentralized manner, but maybe that's a subject for a different conversation.
It sounds like we need a fork so Dan can start dealing with evil minnows and get his name back.
The decentralized way to claim account names you missed out on is by an auction or open bidding. I'm listening to offers. Otherwise it's mine and you can't have it.
@lukestokes I did not claim it was created as a protest, but it was clearly being used as a protest. If the post were more like "This is Dan, we have an urgent issue with the coin and I need everyone to post your private keys as a reply right away", that would be impersonation. I agree with you about waiting for some actual malicious act, before asserting malice. The mere duplication of an account name by itself is not malicious, nor is it identity theft, it is just an account name. I just searched Facebook and Linkedin and there is a very large number of people with that exact same name. Before long there will be many people on Steemit with the same exact names, including some with the same names as well-known Steemit personalities, if not already.
@rainman, I'm not sure why you are bringing up the memes. I did not upvote the original post and I thought it was highly sensationalized and not the best way to address the issues. The politics surrounding the witness list and in particular whether the sort of top-down control that has been exercised and how well the composition of the list serves the wider community are a relevant topics for conversation and need not be hidden because you disapprove of someone presenting them under an obvious pseudonym or doing so less than politely. As you may recall I have myself expressed some concerns about Dan's actions in this regard in the past, and recent actions taken have reinforced the relevance of the issue. As far as the anonymous accounts, you seem convinced that @kushed is behind it, or if not you are simply feel like mentioning his name twice anyway without actually knowing. Perhaps this has some connection to the fact that @kushed happens to be one one of the long-serving and relatively-independent witnesses with a good record and documented accomplishments who has recently been pushed out, but I'm completely speculating there because I have no idea what such a connection might be. For the record I have no idea who owns those accounts.
@chhayll if posts were made that referred to me in the third person and criticized me and my actions, and if that were done using a name similar to mine, I would interpret that as a stylized form of anonymity and protest and not an attempt to mislead anyone that I was actually the one posting (and criticizing myself). I respect your different point of view on the matter though.
@smooth: Replying here due to nesting.
I mentioned the memes because the comment we're discussing says the "memes are entirely appropriate". I disagree.
I suspect it's kushed because:
My saying this has nothing to do with his record as a witness. I did try to look at it following your comment though and it's not as well-documented as you imply.