You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Open Letter to @ned and all Steemians - Stop the wars and the abuse of steem power, we are only damaging Steemit!
Either way you evade the numerous points I made and try to tweeze one hypothetical that still doesn't give the courts or authority any upper hand over the system that IS and WAS designed specifically to thwart GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP, and that includes stopping people from expressing their opinion of content as they see fit, regardless of how "Abusive" it gets interpreted, flagging is freedom of expression, and if you would have taken the numerous pointers to examine and research what blockchain actually is, you might have read in the whitepaper that preventing abuse is not the goal.
Now you are going off on a censorship rant. Listen to you. Okay Steemit was built that thwart not just censorship from government but from censorship period. Meaning if someone was using the flagging system to censor someone into oblivion a person could file in court that the platform was built to avoid censorship, therefore the flag being used to silence someone is in violation of the rules, the rules have to apply overall, the companies failure to apply the rules overall opens them up to liability from the affected filer. If you are flagging someone to silence them that is abuse of the flagging system.
You cannot call it censorship genius because not one BYTE has been altered, the content is the same as it was posted. To censor something the ability to alter content is required. If you cannot change the content then you fail at "censoring", furthermore since nobody can stop someone from posting or speaking their mind when and where they want it's not suppressive to flag the content and make it by default replaced with a clearly visible and intriguing button that says "REVEAL HIDDEN POSTS". The point about censorship is that regulations over the blockchain would indeed be CENSORSHIP, and they would be trespassing on the freedom of expression, which ties in directly to what I was telling the author of this post: flagging is nothing more than someone's opinion on your content. You cannot silence anyone with CURATION. Hence that is why calling Curation TERRORIZING is so ridiculous, and then to equate it to Censorship when it has none of the elements of censorship (least a centralized position of power that "censors") is a stretch. If you bring those arguments before a judge you better realize that he might even side with you but he will tell you straight up that it doesn't matter because you cannot enforce YOUR OPINION on other people, which is essentially what being entitled to no negative opinions in a public forum is nonsense and contrary to the very basic principles of freedom of expression.
https://decentralize.today/the-ugly-truth-behind-steemit-1a525f5e156
Censorship comes in many forms, intimidation is one of them. The material may stay on a page but the damage is done through ruining people's reputations and flagging their accounts to a loss.
Intimidation might be used to effect censorship but Intimidation by itself is not a form of Censorship, in fact, intimidation is usually used to force people to say or do things that they don't want to. Censorship cannot happen if I can click a button and it reveals whatever was censored and censorship is completely redundant when you can post freely what you want regardless of how people curate your content. Intimidation is equally redundant becasuse intimidation and threats can come from all forms, not only downvoting but explicitly through acts and deeds, and "ruining reputation" is clearly not censorship, but a metric that Curates your account in the community. Saying that the material is not affected is basically admitting there is no censorship, and vacating your position is demonstrated by moving onto arguing about the reputation as if the account holder is responsible for only the good curation to his content, reek of entitlement much?
If the equivalent of steemit(not steem because there is no hidden things on steem) censorship existed on youtube or anywhere else it would never be considered censorship, the only reason it's considered censorship here is because people have distorted what censorship is and used that loaded concept to play off peoples emotions and reactionary stances instead of speaking with precision and specifity so as not to create confusion or distort the facts and lead people to interpret Curation as Censorship. Is it Censorship when people downvote things on youtube? Or is censorship when the comments get deleted? Or you consider censorship both and believe that only Porn and Threats or Plagiarism and Spam should be "censored", or not even those? Fuck that I don't want to debate censorship with someone that speaks at length like an idiot about things they ought to know better, like SteemIt being Steem.
BTW, nobody can stop you from posting, you can post with -10000000 reputation.
Also you missed the point, PREVENTING ABUSE IS NOT THE GOAL. read the whitepaper.