You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Can You Explain Why This Post Exposing an Alleged High Profile Scammer on Steemit is Censored, Despite a Ratio of 44 Upvotes to 1 Downvote!?
It's not unusual if the group leader, or project leader doesn't care for legislation.
I have never heard of a large, successful project taking that approach. It will certainly put off a lot of investors.
You don't consider steem successful?
I was responding to you saying that "it's not unusual" which implies there are several examples at least, beyond steem. I am saying that if Steemit/Steem are operating in that way then they are the only example I know of and therefore, I am unclear as to how the experiment will play out for them in the medium term.. The uncertainty means that while Steem/Steemit can be said to be successful currently, there is a question mark over it's future success due to the potential for government interference.
Government interference is an open ended term, if the government makes an account and posts to steem, is that not government interference? And the only rebuttal to that, is So what? You have to demonstrate how and why it's the case.
There are many people that participate in the open source movement which would be in line with the philosophy of steem's developer.
Potential for government interference is fairly large and thus the open ended term was used. The government posting to steem is not interference to me, no. I am not talking about that, I am talking about them moving to do whatever is necessary to shut down competition to their control agenda. In general, they have shown themselves to operate with no scruples at all.
I agree that there are many who would support the idea, I am just saying that there are many who would otherwise have supported the idea but would turn away due to the contractual situation.
Why, why do you think that many would have supported steem if it had reserved rights exclusively like removing or restricting access? It's contrary to the idea of steem first and foremost, so those that would support steem they would do it in spite of that and especially because such reserved rights don't exist.
Wouldn't whatever is necessary to shut down competition to their control agenda not involve otherwise registering an account and posting to the network? And so what, you have to define exactly how that is possible, or precisely how could the government bring down steem, not only is it designed to be resistant to such things, but just like torrents, it distributes itself in a decentralized manner which has demonstrated itself for over a decade now.
There are many who use Facebook, for example, who consider that ability to be a requirement of a 'safe' network. A network that has no mechanism for removing predatory sex offenders, for example - will not meet the safety requirements of various groups and individuals. The list of reasons why people will not use such a service is quite long. In some senses the question can be reframed to 'why do people support government?'.
The act of registering an account is not a requirement for causing the network a problem.
We are talking about a government that has been caught illegally murdering millions of innocent people and stealing trillions of dollars to fund illegal activities of many kinds. They have no scruples at all and so would have no problem at all in launching all manner of exploits, psychological operations, social engineering attacks - whatever is necessary. Bit Torrent may still exist as a technology, but Torrent domains are totally blocked in much of Europe without the use of Tor or an equivalent service. Governments can and will use their power to compel domain registration ISPs, DNS ISPs and other ISPs to simply block domains that they want to shut down. There are ways around that, but then it just becomes an arms race and war between the groups.. This is not an environment that the majority of people are comfortable being involved in.
If they consider that "removing sexual offenders" should be a real concern to create a safe network, they are gravely naive about what is secure, and would hardly make a "many investors into steem". Not everyone wants to be on steem, because some think that agreeing to terms is important, sorry but we don't agree to terms here, and we don't believe in the authority or the legitimacy to uphold those terms. That's a non issue. Those people still have the choice of facebook, and their "safety".
So what? We aren't here to appease everyone, or even the majority, steem isn't here to create a naively constructed safe network, steem is here to create something truly unstoppable, just like torrents.
The problem is that steem is essentially against the centralized aspect of restricting access. If you are for steem and what it is essentially for, or decentralized distribution and unrestricted access along with no central authority with powers to remove access or effectively censor then you cannot be for "restricting or limiting access" or giving some powers that others don't have, which is why it's so contradictory to argue for a position that would compromise the system's censorship proof main factor, because you want to stop something that many hardly consider a problem and few would call it censorship by creating a position with the exclusive power to censor and restrict.
So essentially you have just confirmed that all government can do is little to if anything at all. Do you recognize why the network is safe directly because nobody has authority or could compromise the network through any internal position?
That is your opinion.