RE: My Background and Vision for Steem
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.
Well, I'll give you this. It was fun hitting the downvote button on this comment...
Way to try and avoid the pertinent conversation regarding no flags and the viability of the system forward in such a scenario,o yeah, and thank you for demonstrating what a shit for brains idiot you must be by flagging something you have nothing to say to that had absolutely no reason to be marked as abusive.
Any conversation with you cannot reasonably be labeled "pertinent" in my opinion. The topic of flagging vs. not flagging is important to me, and I am happy to have that conversation with someone that seems reasonable and open-minded. You are not someone I believe has those qualities.
And what do you base your insipid opinions on? Did you not bring up the suggestion of no flags? What I pointed out in such a scenario is entirely pertinent to your suggestion, and there's absolutely nothing to debate about that not being pertinent. You can make up as many excuses as you wish to avoid that conversation and then try to claim that it's about me when it has absolutely nothing to do with me and my qualities, it is all about what would happen where there no flags, but thanks for demonstrating yet again your petulant insistence on strawmen and ad hominems alike, don't forget to yet again show that disagreeing with my remark regarding the inevitable consequences of no flagging without being able to formulate anything of substance or at least thoughtful (argument from silence, first claiming that you'll quit the conversation because I'm not respectful, which is a blatant lie, and then another argument from silence justifying it by claims that I'm not reasonable or open minded) was not enough, you needed to try and censor me, something that you claim to be entirely against, or as you call it, "free speech absolutist", and then continue to do so, hypocrisy at it's best. Let me guess, you think that it's censorship sometimes, but not all the time to flag, right, or you don't even bother to try and justify it, right?
Well, of all the requirements I have for a worthy individual to debate with online I would have to say the ability to competently utilize the space bar on the keyboard is of the utmost importance.
Another snide remark without any basis what so ever. You lied, tried to claim that images are removed by flagging, you lied once more and tried to claim that YouTube doesn't even censor, when in fact YouTube has probably censored more people than China, and they continue to do so, you then avoided the conversation regarding a fairly simple to envision scenario that would undoubtedly happen if your idea of no flagging manifested and sought to attack me and my abilities instead of discussing what you claim to care deeply about, and the whole while you engaged in numerous attempts to silence me by flagging, which you consider censorship and is something you lied about as well by claiming that you are a free speech absolutist which is a complete joke and now you're still trying the same fruitless smearing and baseless jabs at my character that bore you absolutely nothing before, and that when confronted about them, just like numerous other things you brought up, you had absolutely nothing to base or substantiate them on.
Yeah, sure, I'm lacking in the ability to competently utilize the spacebar, lmao, you're reduced to bullshit, and nothing else, and you tried to say I'm unreasonable why again? Lmao.
I did not lie, you are slandering me. Images are removed from visibility due to low rating, unless the site changed that. What you are claiming is that the blockchain data remains there. Yeah, maybe, but who is going to see it? Who is realistically going to spin up a condensor site just so that they can see their own content, which was made not visible for the rest of the community? Nobody.
Lie some more:
YouTube do not even censor lol.
Imagines are removed by steem flags.