RE: How Steem Protects Free Speech Without Promoting Hate Speech
@andrarchy
It does seem to me though like there is an obvious vulnerability here, which is money. If someone has a lot of money, then they could potentially do whatever they want. If a terrorist organization powered up 2 million in Steem, then started posting videos of them decapitating reporters, what could anyone do? Regular users flagging them would be like throwing rice at a tank, and while I'm sure whales would flag them, I think most whales here are primarily interested in profit, so getting into a war with another huge whale is not desirable.
I think it might be too simplistic of an answer to say, everyone is free to power up more steem, as in the real world obviously money is a finite resource and some have millions of times more than others.
This is actually something I thought about a long time ago once I initially wrapped my head around the system here. Back then I thought if Steem ever did become a threat to major Social networks, could they not just create accounts with huge wallets and flood the system with kiddy porn, that they then upvote to everyone's eyes? I mean, realistically I doubt they're that sinister, but the question remains is that a possibility? Because if it is I think it would be good to have the conversation about a defense against that before it enters the realm of plausibility.
Maybe the extreme examples I'm using here violate laws so they'd be okay to remove in a centralized way? Or would people just have to deal with that, because I imagine it would be catastrophic.
Setting aside these extreme examples, if say the KKK, since they're an organized group, just put out a mandate for all their members to start powering up Steem, and they collectively amassed a few million in SP, would they be able to hijack Steem as their own platform?
Please @andrarchy I’ve been visiting this particular comment repeatedly to see your reply, please this comment indeed demands for a reply.
What stops them from doing that is that steemit and any other front end that has ethics will blacklist them while subsequently the whales and large stakeholders will counter such things so as not to devalue the token by the lack of policing. It could easily turn into the top 19 witnesses locking all that steem into the account and removing any and all permissions from the account through unanimous consensus.
Posted using Partiko Android
That's a horrible answer... that answer is exactly why Facebook, twitter and all are going to fail.
They had people with "ethics" determining what should be hidden from people.
Yes, lets start with those racist KKK members, then lets get rid of those deplorable people that have an opposing political belief, once the precedent is set and the capacity to do so is proven... then it's just the decision of who to block.
You think that steemit and busy and all other front ends shouldn't decide what they want to display from the blockchain and should have no say over that?
Your reply is borderline incoherent because it avoids everything I've said and asserts that somehow I was expressing how to "get rid of 'those horrible' people and not how to deal with people that would invest into steem so they can publicize decapitation videos and spread fatality porn, which is an extreme case, that I doubt you have anything constructive to add towards those concerns since it seems you think that a unanimous consensus by the top 19 witnesses to deal with such extreme scenarios will open the floodgates for anything remotely similar to that.
They, as in facebook, twitter, have nothing to do with steem and any comparison which handwaves away the fact that this system is decentralized and the front end has every right to run as they see fit and compares the two in spite of those factors are dismissable as nonsense or utterly mistaken and has no significance in the discussion about how, with the current state and tools, can we deal with those extreme circumstances should we have to.
Posted using Partiko Android
First, this playing dumb trying to look smart, Ive never understood the goal with that. Seriously, 3 sentences, only 1 was compound and you struggle?? Not a good look man.
If you want a club that is exclusive, make it as exclusive as you want. If you are calling yourself an open and censorship resistant platform, then no. UNLESS they are accepting responsibility for every crime that occurs, because then they vecome publishers who are responsible for the published content.
BTW - the examples you mention really cross the boundary into criminal activity, and cutting out that content and presenting it and related evidence to authorities is completely justified. You really should have throught through your position, because i just pointed out the effects that this would cause.
Facebook and Twitter, they are dancing on that head of the pin, claiming to be an open platform BUT wanting to maintain the privileges that come with being publishers. And they BOTH have FAR WORSE to face if they are determined to be publishers. You are treating this as final while they are still in the process of committing the crimes, not yet at the point where these actions face a legal determination. (The cases that have occurred DO NOT favor your position)
So you attack my character instead of simply answering the question that was pivotal to the discussion about such a scenario:
You think that steemit and busy and all other front ends shouldn't decide what they want to display from the blockchain and should have no say over that?
The obtuse one is the one who argues that law can do anything on an "open and censorship-resistant platform" or implying anything to that effect. Seriously though, the example isn't mine but what I responded to, and that only indicates that you jumped in the midst of conversation without any fucking idea of what was discussed, as I can only lol all day at your trying to look dumb by acting smart, or how does it go? O yeah, suggesting that something which hypothetically is published for everyone to see needs to be presented to authorities even though the authorities couldn't do anything at all to combat what those people hypothetically published.
I struggle with the dimwitted obtuse all the time, it seems that they are generally a walking bagpipe of Freudian Slips for my entertainment. My position has not changed. Steemit and any other front end can and will more than likely blacklist the accounts in such a scenario. Furthermore, the top witnesses can and more than likely will freeze or outright delete the accounts, not only the data. And finally, the large stakeholders can flag the account and bury the content and more than likely will.
The fact that you still blather on about facebook and twitter as it has any significance in the discussion only attests to how lost in the sauce you must be.
Posted using Partiko Android
I didn't attack your character, YOU made the decision to pretend like 2 simple sentences and a compound sentence was confusing, yet you now expect me to believe you understand the legal issues at play??
I've seriously never understood the intent of that tactic you tried, it's never worked, and even if you came out and quoted laws to back up your position, I'm still left with the mentality that "hey, how is this guy legal expert when he barely grasped the grammar?"
Edit: Re-read your first response to me where you directly attacked my character, I point out your tactic to play dumb trying to look smart, and you start crying....
It's exactly a demonstration why people that want censorship are far too child-like to make those types of determinations. We end up with this type of faggotry.
How and why did I attack your character?
I not only understood what you said but I raised the question which directly deals with what you seem to have been avoiding. You've still to provide any kind of constructive solution to the concern raised. You bring up the issue of law and legality without explaining g what that could possibly solve or how. It indicates that you don't know what you're talking about.
You attacked my character by insinuating that I didn't understand either of you sentences despite their relative lack of complexity. You didn't bother to explain why and how that is so.
You now want to talk more about the type of person I am without addressing anything I've said, such as me not having the understanding of legality of the situation or that somehow the bullshit lie that I attacked you, even though you haven't explained why and how that is, is indicative of me being childlike or wanting censorship.
I have no reason to pretend, and you can keep insinuating that somehow you know what I pretend and what I mean instead of addressing why and how your response wasn't confusing, to begin with. You indicated by your initial response that you had no idea what the conversation was about or what concerns I was addressing, nor did you address why and how my response was horrible in the context of the concern voiced. You made it sound as if an extreme case was going to open the floodgates without explaining why and how that is so, should the consensus form to ban the abusers and/or should the front ends decide to blacklist them.
You clearly are confused, not only can you not explain why and how the law can deal with that extreme case, but you keep insisting that somehow they can by your nonsense of insinuating that I couldn't possibly know that. It seems you have a hard time understanding, and I won't stoop to your level and accuse you of pretending.
Posted using Partiko Android