That's not censorship. Censorship isn't readily accessible information curated as hidden by default on certain front end services. Censorship is when you cannot access the information, no matter how much you try, when the information was changed / edited without any kind of reference that it was edited, that's censorship. Let me ask you this regarding information curated as hidden by default, do you think that it should be removed, the option for things that have been downvoted to be hidden? If so, do you think that such warning/caution should not be attached to questionable content? What if someone posts some incredibly harmful things, like fatality pics/videos, and they make it seem like it's a video of kittens when it's actually something very disturbing and clearly harmful, not just deceiving, should they be able to do so pretty much with impunity?
Here you are, shameless as ever agreeing to what exactly? If the agreement was thoughtful, if it was sensible or at the very least if it was true and right, my question would be cherished as a jump point to explain yourself and clarify for all what it is you seemingly consider agreeable, something that any critical thinker wouldn't squander by slinking away from in silence, but I bet my bottom buck that you won't come back with a straightforward and cogent explanation which leaves nothing to uncertainty or vagueness alike as to what "who guards the guardians" is in reference to and how that has any validity as a contention to what I said
That's exactly the point of this whole place, there are no guardian roles at all. Anyone who wants can copy this entire place with almost no technical knowledge, they can figure out how to distribute the initial stake and start their own version, and tweak it how they want, and if they want, they can only clone the condenser (the front end) as that too is open source and requires close to no tech knowhow, and they can change whatever they want, if they want to remove the option to make content that's rated below a certain threshold initially substituted by a button that once clicked reveals the original content, then they can, and people have done that already. They have cloned the chain and removed the option from the base layer (chain) to downvote, like whaleshares.io, then there are other places that, like busy and partiko, have a completely different front end that doesn't hide things that have negative payouts, and they did it the "hard" way, by making an entirely new frontend, it would be almost trivial to do it the easy way and clone the open source condenser.
I asked you those questions to discuss the merits behind serving certain content to the audience with a warning/caution that it may not be "good", because I think that such a feature is essential to the well being of the platform, it provides a very simple to use mechanism to caution the audience, and even if it is abused, it absolutely does not make it censorship, ever, since no information is unavailable or edited in any way. The whole "who guards the guardians" seemingly tries to avoid that conversation on the false pretext that there are such roles or such roles for the roles (guarding the guardians). Think about it, does the "rated/marked as hidden" feature not offer an overall benefit to the community, and do the downvotes as well not work to offer a check for unabridged abuse, not necessarily things like spam or bad/disturbing /deceitful / harmful content, but behaviors like exclusive self voting which would threaten the health of the overall community and would begin by as a prisoners dilemma, whereby more and more people race to vote only for themselves as there is reprocrisuon for doing so and anyone who is acting otherwise would mean not maximizing/capitulating on a guaranteed steem of profits.. I'm sure these aren't the first time you've stumbled over, these things are explained on a weekly basis it seems, just moments before writing this I ridiculed a retarded individual for trying to make a case that rated as hidden is censorship. People take censorship to mean anything and everything that isn't received positively it seems, they probably have never been actually censored or have witnessed actual censorship, it appears that people will whine, exactly like you have, asserting nil explanation or substance, nonsense like censorship, on a censorship proof platform for eternity. Even if things aren't rated as hidden, @hobo.media will certainly try to say it's demonization and therefore censorship, as if people are entitled to positive votes but not negative ones and rewards are guaranteed as if this isn't a game, but a crowdsourcing milking scheme.
You're reduced to mindless ridicule and spamming, while like a good hypocrite you engage in censorship even though you yourself claim to be a free speech absolutist, and it's a logically sound conclusion as by using your own interpretation of censorship ( certainly, not mine, which posits that rating things as such, is simply rating things as such, especially considering that you cannot suppress my freedom of expression on this media by doing so) this is jetbejet (through - and-through) censorship. The beauty of all this, you expose that despite the numerous remarks and snide comments regarding being for logic you care for no such things, to you ridicule nil thought is fair, as was previously numerous attempts at tone policing amomg other such fallacious avenues to attempt at convincing people that "censorship is rating things as not worthy of rewards", and here you are trying to give credence to the inane nonsense non sequitur that there are guardians that need guardianship when the whole discussion was about the necessity of the "rated as hidden" feature, a discussion I didn't abide from for even the briefest of moments.
Dude, the flag was a joke... I thought that was obvious. Wow, I must have really pissed you off in that old conversation for you to rant so much at me.
And no, I did not read that wall of text, I glanced a bit, but not enough to know everything you said.
Not at all, I enjoy ridiculing you for your hypocrisy, nonsense and blatant lies, and could not care less what you think, as I said before, I'm not here to make you my friends /convince you of anything, you are just a medium for my repertoire exposing idiocy and bullshit.
This is coming from someone who rationalized that downvoting is censorship because it attempts to change behavior based on socioengeneering, that basically anything that impedes the free spontaneous expression is censorship, so that when someone boos at a speaker, they are engaged in censorship, and so that if they say they don't like something and voice that opinion, be it through voting, thumbs down, etc, that's attempting to suppress and inhibit the other person, and that is censorship because they are engaging in and I quote
"Censorship is not necessarily deleting but also inhibiting, prohibiting, putting down and restraining an expression. Flagging is restraining a message by making it less visible with the intent of it being seen by fewer people due to being more difficult to take note of.
Is flagging intentionally inhibiting content?
Definition of Inhibiting: "to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints"
..
So, is flagging censorship? Anyone saying it is not is not disagreeing with me, they are disagreeing with the English language according to academically backed dictionaries.
You literally "reasoned" that because censorship is suppressing and because suppression is inhibiting that any inhibiting is censorship, and when rebuked and pointed out that some "X" are "Y" and some "Y" are "Z" but that doesn't mean all "Z" are "X" you literally said:
This is a ridiculous argument. I mean to be polite, but its so blatantly wrong. The point to this paragraph is nothing more than trying to reduce facts and truth with bewilderment. Its a trick, make the matter sound more complicated than it actually is and the opposing argument appears questionable. This is manipulative debating, like a politician would do.
Let's keep things simple, shall we? If it walks like censorship, and quacks like censorship, its censorship.
Which needs no rebuke as assertion nil explanation is dismissed by an assertion to the contrary, but let me be courteous and extend you another chance:
So anything that is inhibiting free expression is censorship, especially things like disagreement, dislike, negative opinions, as they all are confirmed by your litmus test:
"to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints".
So here you are, a hypocrite in flesh and bones, trying your darnest through mockery, ridicule, sleazy slimy snide remarks" no true hard feelings" to operate to discourage me by the operation of inner psychological AND external social constraints, correct?
Dude, you are trying to bring back an old conversation that I ended because it was exhausting continuing the conversation. We disagree, let's just agree to disagree. I had given you plenty of my time back then and typed out plenty of responses to you. But I do stand by everything I said back then, it was right then and it is right today. You disagree with me, and that's fine.
But I warn you, businesses as brought up the downvote feature as one issue they have with this platform. Many publishers prefer places like Minds.com over Steem because this place is overly investor-centric for a social site. And investors have too much power over the place, able to devalue what they want and punish whoever they want. It has been recognized by many Steemians that whales have the power to make this place pointless to a user. If all your content is going to be shaded and condensed and your images removed, and you're not going to be able to monetize your content, you will not value coming to Steem and posting up content. Steem is its reward system and visibility, and when you reduce to completely eliminate those features, Steem because useless to you.
Let me show you:
I found this quite comical, this guy honusurf believes in utilizing his 20,000 SP to punish people that simply communicate on Steem with someone honusurf dislikes. This shows the evils that exist with downvotes. However, this person's experience on Steem is ironically pointless, and the guy's 20,000 SP is not doing him/her much good because an even more powerful tyrant dislikes honusurf: iflagtrash and abusereports.
This guy's content production days seem to be numbered. Why be on Steem when you could be on a more popular site that also doesn't reward you for content? The value of Steem's reward system is being taken away from honusurf by iflagtrash and abusereports.
Let's look at who else iflagtrash and abuse reports are censoring:
Look at all the people that upvoted that guy's post. The majority of the people liked the content, but Steem's design did not care about what the majority thought. Steem served the wealthy three that disliked it and reduced the value of all the other voters to 0. I can't imagine I would ever want a system like that to grow to the popularity level of Youtube or Twitter, let alone a combination of all the social medias and blogs as is Steem's objective.
I don't like Honusurf, he/she seems like a real jerk. But I still don't believe in people having the subjective power to render their access to Steem's key features pointless.
Assume there is a fixed amount of money to distribute, and that those who have a long-term vested interest in the future value and utility of the currency are the ones who must decide how to allocate it. Every vesting user casts their votes on who did the best work and at the end of the day the available money for that day is divided proportional to the votes such that everyone with even one net positive vote gets something.
The naive voting process creates a Prisoner's Dilemma whereby each individual voter has incentive to vote for themselves at the expense of the larger community goal. If every voter defects by voting for themselves then no currency will end up distributed and the currency as a whole will fail to gain network effect. On the other hand, if only one voter defects then that voter would win undeserved profits while having minimal effect on the overall value of the currency.
I don't like Honusurf, he/she seems like a real jerk. But I still don't believe in people having the subjective power to render their access to Steem's key features pointless.
Why but, clearly you don't understand simple game theory :
If there is no penalty for self voting and self voting is a guarantee of maximum "rewards" then it makes sense that in very short time the overwhelming majority will resort to self voting instead of risking otherwise. In doing so they are literally incentivized to spam post, and this will likely be completely automated so that they can set it and forget it as whatever value is extracted in a constant race to the bottom, until this place is rendered as the most nonsensical space in the world, with witnesses voting only for themselves, regardless of how many votes they have alloted, and with no one who is interested at all in building anything on here.
You are so completely wrong on this topic that you clearly have no qualm to lie and claim that things are removed or to use less than one percent of one percent of one percent of all flagging (which in itself is less than one percent of one percent of all voting) as some kind of argument that it's bad, but you don't like it, but you don't believe in flagging, but you don't like it.
I asked you very pointed questions that you avoided, I consider this as nonsense then, good luck trying to be heard or taken seriously by anyone other than complete idiots and retards, and even though there's plenty of those imbecilic nonthoughts by their nature there are very very few with the knowhow, the connections, and least the reasoning ability to effectuate any meaningful change regarding making this place a toxic hell hole where users can post fatality videos under the deceptive title and thumbnail of "the cutest kittens ever" and do so without recourse other than maybe some idiots who stick around and try to warn people through the comment section, and without flagging, the fatality spamming trolls can earn tokens while doing it, perfect environment to promote crap, but at the very least, you can have your "no censorship please".
this post was hidden due to low ratings (not by me)
which further proves my point that Steemit is NOT resistent to censorship.
In fact I'd suggest that the existence of the Flagging mechanism is evidence that Steemit has built in censorship.
It doesn't, hiding something and offering a clear option to reveal it which acts as a caution/warning and completely removing something are two entirely different things. Also, Steem is not Steemit, no one has been censored on steem and for that to happen, for someone to have their content removed requires that 17 out of the top 20 witnesses do so.
The irony is that 'this content' which you claim is censored, is presented unchanged in it's original form and you are responding to it, in essence how can something be censored and you can see it in its entirety, unedited and completely original, and respond to it?
Clearly your interpretation of censoring is rating things as hidden, which anyone who understands what freedom of expression is, recognizes that rating things is a form of expression itself while whatever was rated as hidden, since it is still available in the exact same place where it was first published and is otherwise completely intact, only predicated with a caution that it's rated as negative, it does not infringe on that author's freedom of expression.
Exactly what isn't censorship? I'd like to see if you can explain your response with clear and sound rational logic or if you'd rather be left to snicker in the corner while seemingly attempting to find some support from someone who responded with a non sequitur, as you've done thus far.
I'm sure that if you keep this up you'll have no problem convincing people that steem is inherently allowing anyone with a little bit of stake to censor, something that it (steem white paper) states in no uncertain terms that it is against on a most basic level, and wouldn't be a stretch to call it the ethos of this place, and after all, if you aren't actively exposing that disparaging and blatantly deceptive fact, you're silently condoning the deception. Check mate.
Image (or post) not shown due to low ratings
I can view anything here simply click reveal comment etc.
That's not censorship. Censorship isn't readily accessible information curated as hidden by default on certain front end services. Censorship is when you cannot access the information, no matter how much you try, when the information was changed / edited without any kind of reference that it was edited, that's censorship. Let me ask you this regarding information curated as hidden by default, do you think that it should be removed, the option for things that have been downvoted to be hidden? If so, do you think that such warning/caution should not be attached to questionable content? What if someone posts some incredibly harmful things, like fatality pics/videos, and they make it seem like it's a video of kittens when it's actually something very disturbing and clearly harmful, not just deceiving, should they be able to do so pretty much with impunity?
who guards the guardians?
I agree. :)
Here you are, shameless as ever agreeing to what exactly? If the agreement was thoughtful, if it was sensible or at the very least if it was true and right, my question would be cherished as a jump point to explain yourself and clarify for all what it is you seemingly consider agreeable, something that any critical thinker wouldn't squander by slinking away from in silence, but I bet my bottom buck that you won't come back with a straightforward and cogent explanation which leaves nothing to uncertainty or vagueness alike as to what "who guards the guardians" is in reference to and how that has any validity as a contention to what I said
That's exactly the point of this whole place, there are no guardian roles at all. Anyone who wants can copy this entire place with almost no technical knowledge, they can figure out how to distribute the initial stake and start their own version, and tweak it how they want, and if they want, they can only clone the condenser (the front end) as that too is open source and requires close to no tech knowhow, and they can change whatever they want, if they want to remove the option to make content that's rated below a certain threshold initially substituted by a button that once clicked reveals the original content, then they can, and people have done that already. They have cloned the chain and removed the option from the base layer (chain) to downvote, like whaleshares.io, then there are other places that, like busy and partiko, have a completely different front end that doesn't hide things that have negative payouts, and they did it the "hard" way, by making an entirely new frontend, it would be almost trivial to do it the easy way and clone the open source condenser.
I asked you those questions to discuss the merits behind serving certain content to the audience with a warning/caution that it may not be "good", because I think that such a feature is essential to the well being of the platform, it provides a very simple to use mechanism to caution the audience, and even if it is abused, it absolutely does not make it censorship, ever, since no information is unavailable or edited in any way. The whole "who guards the guardians" seemingly tries to avoid that conversation on the false pretext that there are such roles or such roles for the roles (guarding the guardians). Think about it, does the "rated/marked as hidden" feature not offer an overall benefit to the community, and do the downvotes as well not work to offer a check for unabridged abuse, not necessarily things like spam or bad/disturbing /deceitful / harmful content, but behaviors like exclusive self voting which would threaten the health of the overall community and would begin by as a prisoners dilemma, whereby more and more people race to vote only for themselves as there is reprocrisuon for doing so and anyone who is acting otherwise would mean not maximizing/capitulating on a guaranteed steem of profits.. I'm sure these aren't the first time you've stumbled over, these things are explained on a weekly basis it seems, just moments before writing this I ridiculed a retarded individual for trying to make a case that rated as hidden is censorship. People take censorship to mean anything and everything that isn't received positively it seems, they probably have never been actually censored or have witnessed actual censorship, it appears that people will whine, exactly like you have, asserting nil explanation or substance, nonsense like censorship, on a censorship proof platform for eternity. Even if things aren't rated as hidden, @hobo.media will certainly try to say it's demonization and therefore censorship, as if people are entitled to positive votes but not negative ones and rewards are guaranteed as if this isn't a game, but a crowdsourcing milking scheme.
Look away everyone, nothing to see here. This is not censorship. ;)
You're reduced to mindless ridicule and spamming, while like a good hypocrite you engage in censorship even though you yourself claim to be a free speech absolutist, and it's a logically sound conclusion as by using your own interpretation of censorship ( certainly, not mine, which posits that rating things as such, is simply rating things as such, especially considering that you cannot suppress my freedom of expression on this media by doing so) this is jetbejet (through - and-through) censorship. The beauty of all this, you expose that despite the numerous remarks and snide comments regarding being for logic you care for no such things, to you ridicule nil thought is fair, as was previously numerous attempts at tone policing amomg other such fallacious avenues to attempt at convincing people that "censorship is rating things as not worthy of rewards", and here you are trying to give credence to the inane nonsense non sequitur that there are guardians that need guardianship when the whole discussion was about the necessity of the "rated as hidden" feature, a discussion I didn't abide from for even the briefest of moments.
Dude, the flag was a joke... I thought that was obvious. Wow, I must have really pissed you off in that old conversation for you to rant so much at me.
And no, I did not read that wall of text, I glanced a bit, but not enough to know everything you said.
Not at all, I enjoy ridiculing you for your hypocrisy, nonsense and blatant lies, and could not care less what you think, as I said before, I'm not here to make you my friends /convince you of anything, you are just a medium for my repertoire exposing idiocy and bullshit.
Just screwing with you @baah, no true hard feelings intended. :)
This is coming from someone who rationalized that downvoting is censorship because it attempts to change behavior based on socioengeneering, that basically anything that impedes the free spontaneous expression is censorship, so that when someone boos at a speaker, they are engaged in censorship, and so that if they say they don't like something and voice that opinion, be it through voting, thumbs down, etc, that's attempting to suppress and inhibit the other person, and that is censorship because they are engaging in and I quote
"Censorship is not necessarily deleting but also inhibiting, prohibiting, putting down and restraining an expression. Flagging is restraining a message by making it less visible with the intent of it being seen by fewer people due to being more difficult to take note of.
..
You literally "reasoned" that because censorship is suppressing and because suppression is inhibiting that any inhibiting is censorship, and when rebuked and pointed out that some "X" are "Y" and some "Y" are "Z" but that doesn't mean all "Z" are "X" you literally said:
Which needs no rebuke as assertion nil explanation is dismissed by an assertion to the contrary, but let me be courteous and extend you another chance:
So anything that is inhibiting free expression is censorship, especially things like disagreement, dislike, negative opinions, as they all are confirmed by your litmus test:
"to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints".
So here you are, a hypocrite in flesh and bones, trying your darnest through mockery, ridicule, sleazy slimy snide remarks" no true hard feelings" to operate to discourage me by the operation of inner psychological AND external social constraints, correct?
Dude, you are trying to bring back an old conversation that I ended because it was exhausting continuing the conversation. We disagree, let's just agree to disagree. I had given you plenty of my time back then and typed out plenty of responses to you. But I do stand by everything I said back then, it was right then and it is right today. You disagree with me, and that's fine.
But I warn you, businesses as brought up the downvote feature as one issue they have with this platform. Many publishers prefer places like Minds.com over Steem because this place is overly investor-centric for a social site. And investors have too much power over the place, able to devalue what they want and punish whoever they want. It has been recognized by many Steemians that whales have the power to make this place pointless to a user. If all your content is going to be shaded and condensed and your images removed, and you're not going to be able to monetize your content, you will not value coming to Steem and posting up content. Steem is its reward system and visibility, and when you reduce to completely eliminate those features, Steem because useless to you.
Let me show you:
I found this quite comical, this guy honusurf believes in utilizing his 20,000 SP to punish people that simply communicate on Steem with someone honusurf dislikes. This shows the evils that exist with downvotes. However, this person's experience on Steem is ironically pointless, and the guy's 20,000 SP is not doing him/her much good because an even more powerful tyrant dislikes honusurf: iflagtrash and abusereports.
This guy's content production days seem to be numbered. Why be on Steem when you could be on a more popular site that also doesn't reward you for content? The value of Steem's reward system is being taken away from honusurf by iflagtrash and abusereports.
Let's look at who else iflagtrash and abuse reports are censoring:
Look at all the people that upvoted that guy's post. The majority of the people liked the content, but Steem's design did not care about what the majority thought. Steem served the wealthy three that disliked it and reduced the value of all the other voters to 0. I can't imagine I would ever want a system like that to grow to the popularity level of Youtube or Twitter, let alone a combination of all the social medias and blogs as is Steem's objective.
I don't like Honusurf, he/she seems like a real jerk. But I still don't believe in people having the subjective power to render their access to Steem's key features pointless.
It wasn't correct then, and asserting that it is correct now won't change it.
Ergo flagging.
Why but, clearly you don't understand simple game theory :
If there is no penalty for self voting and self voting is a guarantee of maximum "rewards" then it makes sense that in very short time the overwhelming majority will resort to self voting instead of risking otherwise. In doing so they are literally incentivized to spam post, and this will likely be completely automated so that they can set it and forget it as whatever value is extracted in a constant race to the bottom, until this place is rendered as the most nonsensical space in the world, with witnesses voting only for themselves, regardless of how many votes they have alloted, and with no one who is interested at all in building anything on here.
You are so completely wrong on this topic that you clearly have no qualm to lie and claim that things are removed or to use less than one percent of one percent of one percent of all flagging (which in itself is less than one percent of one percent of all voting) as some kind of argument that it's bad, but you don't like it, but you don't believe in flagging, but you don't like it.
this post was hidden due to low ratings
I asked you very pointed questions that you avoided, I consider this as nonsense then, good luck trying to be heard or taken seriously by anyone other than complete idiots and retards, and even though there's plenty of those imbecilic nonthoughts by their nature there are very very few with the knowhow, the connections, and least the reasoning ability to effectuate any meaningful change regarding making this place a toxic hell hole where users can post fatality videos under the deceptive title and thumbnail of "the cutest kittens ever" and do so without recourse other than maybe some idiots who stick around and try to warn people through the comment section, and without flagging, the fatality spamming trolls can earn tokens while doing it, perfect environment to promote crap, but at the very least, you can have your "no censorship please".
this post was hidden due to low ratings (not by me)
which further proves my point that Steemit is NOT resistent to censorship.
In fact I'd suggest that the existence of the Flagging mechanism is evidence that Steemit has built in censorship.
It doesn't, hiding something and offering a clear option to reveal it which acts as a caution/warning and completely removing something are two entirely different things. Also, Steem is not Steemit, no one has been censored on steem and for that to happen, for someone to have their content removed requires that 17 out of the top 20 witnesses do so.
The irony is that 'this content' which you claim is censored, is presented unchanged in it's original form and you are responding to it, in essence how can something be censored and you can see it in its entirety, unedited and completely original, and respond to it?
Clearly your interpretation of censoring is rating things as hidden, which anyone who understands what freedom of expression is, recognizes that rating things is a form of expression itself while whatever was rated as hidden, since it is still available in the exact same place where it was first published and is otherwise completely intact, only predicated with a caution that it's rated as negative, it does not infringe on that author's freedom of expression.
Look away everyone, nothing to see here. This is not censorship. ;)
Exactly what isn't censorship? I'd like to see if you can explain your response with clear and sound rational logic or if you'd rather be left to snicker in the corner while seemingly attempting to find some support from someone who responded with a non sequitur, as you've done thus far.
I'm sure that if you keep this up you'll have no problem convincing people that steem is inherently allowing anyone with a little bit of stake to censor, something that it (steem white paper) states in no uncertain terms that it is against on a most basic level, and wouldn't be a stretch to call it the ethos of this place, and after all, if you aren't actively exposing that disparaging and blatantly deceptive fact, you're silently condoning the deception. Check mate.