Wow. Now that was an interesting article. By interesting I mean we could just completely dismiss it and not pay it any attention; except that Ned responded to it? What's that all about?

I thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we can make things less visible on Steemit by flagging, but that there's no way to actually remove/delete content from the Blockchain?

I have to interpret what Ned was saying is that even though Steemit can remove information from people's feeds or what it displays, it can't actually alter the blockchain, right?

Otherwise what would be the point of a decentralized blockchain verified by witnesses if everything was hosted centrally and Steemit Inc could just waltz right in and remove content

I didn't even think that they could remove plagiarized/copyrighted material... Isn't the only solution to stolen content posted by someone without the rights was to Cheetahbot / auto-flag it?

Yeah I guess I do find that a little concerning to @venom
Thanks for sharing this information and letting us know down the line if you hear or see anything more about what that statement actually means let alone implies...

Is it possible that Steemit Inc is just trying to deflect bad press and avoid completely tarneshing the reputation of the platform before it has a chance to actually give YouTube a run for its money?

If it's just a strategic, convoluted way to do some damage control while being somewhat of a meaningless and generic statement I would feel a whole lot better than if this is actually a statement by the leadership of Steemit that "Oh no, we fully intend to toe the mainstream/YouTube line, we just want to fill our pockets and be players in the game too"

I think Steemit has definitely been growing in popularity and since the whole model of this platform right now is based on being sexy for people to purchase Steem, maybe this is just a way to not make Steem look like a "alt-right hate-speech platform" in the eyes of the Matrix slaves before it has a chance to take off and give YouTube a run for its money (and audience?)

I don't know; what do you think then? You think it's actually dire, or somewhat meaningless at this point?