Jerry Banfield, Down-Voting & Freedom of Speech

"I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.” 

Voltaire

The Recent Whale-Meltdown

Recently, there was a Whale Melt-Down here on Steemit.  

It involved a video post, Is The Steem Price Too Low And How Do We Fix It, by Jerry Banfield, perhaps Steemit's most 'visible member' (and, until this incident, a Top 20 Witness), that got down-voted to zero by a goodly number of whales. In it, Banfield rails on about Down-Voting Abuse by whales and calls for not only an end to down-voting ... but for less wealthy Steemians to collectively crash the price of STEEM (by collectively selling their STEEM) in order to force the Whales and Witnesses to comply.  

The trigger for Banfield's post was an earlier video, the Ultimate Selfie, a stand-up comedy post that had received a substantial number of whale down-votes, raising Banfield's ire. The comedy post in question was, to put in mildly, disgusting.  

The Whale Melt-Down opened up Pandora's Box about a number of systemic problems here on Steemit, including Freedom of Speech and the use of down-voting as a form of censorship. As I thought about Steemit's myriad of systemic problems, I decided to publish a series of posts (including a number of solutions), of which this is the first. 

Personal Note to Jerry - Not Your Finest Hour 

Firstly, Banfield is not Seinfeld. Jerry, whatever talents you possess in life ... comedy is not one of them. Self-evidently, you don't possess the instinct for determining, "what's funny."

Secondly, think of a bullseye: The circle in the center ... that's your skull. It's for private things that you keep to yourself lest everyone else think you a lunatic. The concentric circle around the center ... that is filled with things you share with your wife, your kids and close personal friends. The outermost concentric circle is for things you share with the world ... the things you post on social media.  

Yes, I'm aware that there is a post-modern philosophy that argues that nothing is normal, and therefore nothing is abnormal - that nothing is right and therefore nothing is wrong. The over-whelming majority of people, however, would beg to differ. Of course, the rest of us could all be insane and you could be the revolutionary thought leader who's going to lead us all out of darkness and into the Promised Land of Enlightenment - but, as with most fantasies in which we cast ourselves as the hero, it's unlikely. 

I think you need a Perspective Rethink - to learn the difference between 'ideology' ... and 'ideas, ideals and insights.' 

Free Speech & Censorship 

I am a Free Speech purist. While I agree with certain traditional restraints on Free Speech (libel, slander, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater), I'm vehemently opposed to stifling Offensive Speech of any kind, including so-called Hate Speech. Holocaust Deniers ... let them have their say. If you don't possess the verbal or historical acuity to humiliate them in public, DM me ... I do.  

The problem with restraining speech is where do you draw the line? What one person finds offensive, another finds enlightening. Who gets to make that discretionary call? This is something that has tormented philosophers and lawmakers for centuries. There is, of course, no answer that satisfies everyone. 

One need only visit any modern western university to see how Speech Suppression is employed. Far Left activists, of one kind or another, sitting cross-legged in their 'Safe Spaces,' rocking back and forth, weeping, because they feel 'threatened' due to the presence of a conservative speaker (anyone who disagrees with them) somewhere on campus. The motivation for such theatrics is self-evident to anyone with an IQ over 2 ... the Suppression of Speech. 'De-Platforming' they call it. If the other guy disagrees with your ideology, prevent him from speaking or, at least, make it all-but-impossible for his words to be heard. Trigger-Warnings, Speech Codes, euphimization ... and pulling fire alarms (and starting riots) during lectures. This lunacy is now endemic (I could easily hyperlink several hundred such incidents).         

Indeed, it's gotten so bad that 2,000+ of the nation's most prominent professors, almost none of whom are conservatives, have formed the Heterodox Academy in an effort to push back. Indeed, they're now ranking (poorly) the universities, with respect to Freedom of Speech, at which they themselves work. Universities can stand for Social Justice or they can stand for Truth .... but they can't stand for both. The former requires Feelings, the latter requires Facts. Incidentally, I wrote an article (and a follow-up essay here) about the subject a couple of months ago.   

Down-Voting On Steemit

Down-voting on Steemit can be used for two things: To suppress Offensive Speech; and, to suppress Offensive Behaviors. The latter is justifiable, the former is not.

Offensive Speech - Banfield's Comedic Post

Banfield's 'comedic post,' which triggered the whole incident, was vomit-worthy. Personally, I couldn't watch the whole thing. But ... it did not threaten anyone or untruthfully disparage anyone's reputation, the traditional justifications for restraining speech. 

Nor did his 2nd post. This one was filled with the utterly ridiculous assertion that Whale Down-Voting was causing the current low price of STEEM. Such assertion merits eye-rolling derision. More on this later.

But nothing in life is free and the price you pay for your right to speak as you would, is the granting to others the right to do the same - no matter how distasteful or ridiculous.

So were the Whale Down-Votes Speech Suppression - censorship? 

On Steemit, making money for publishing content is the blockchain's raison d'etre. So, when a dozen whales nullify the profit derived from hundreds of smaller upvoters, we've got a problem. But what if a $1,000 post is actually mostly self-upvotes obtained through bidbots? This was the case with Banfield's 'comedy video.'

'Live and Let Live' is based upon the premise that if you're not hurting someone else, you should be free to do whatever you want. But here on Steemit, self-bidbotting crap diminishes the payout to other authors, as the Reward Pool Payout is a fixed amount per period.    

If you disagree with the content of someone's post, then don't upvote them. And, make your disagreement known in the comments section. And, be verbose. Hire a poet if you like. But if you nullify the upvotes of others, you've just murdered the essence of Steemit, without which it has no purpose. This is de-platforming by any other name. 

That said, massively self-upvoting obnoxious content via bidbots is gaming the system, Raping the Reward Pool. In such circumstance, you forfeit your right to cry, "Thieves," when that which was stolen was itself obtained through theft. Banfield does not have clean hands and his allegations of moral turpitude on behalf of the Whales is fallacious at best.     

Offensive Behaviors ... Justifiable Down-Voting

Any organization, Steemit included, requires rules of conduct and down-voting is the only form of sanction available to Steemians. And so, there are legitimate reasons to downvote posts or comments.

Spam, scams and plagiarism are Offensive Behaviors that threaten the integrity of the blockchain. Posts that physically threaten someone's physical safety or untruthfully disparage someone's reputation are equally unacceptable. 

Notwithstanding the Banfield incident, 'Raping the Reward Pool' is more complicated so I'm going to address it in a later article.  

UnVoting Banfield As Witness

Banfield's assertion (in his second post) that Whale Down-Voting was causing the current low price of STEEM was ridiculous (I used to run a currency-trading hedge fund). Pull up a price chart of STEEM and BITCOIN. Notice a pattern? When BITCOIN goes up 10%, STEEM goes up 15% and vice versa. The same holds true for the entire world of cryptocurrencies with the exception of stablecoins (those fixed to the US Dollar or other real-world assets). 

This BITCOIN-centric dynamic will continue until the development of a functioning derivatives market (call and put options with deep-pocketed Market Makers and realistic bid-ask spreads) so as to allow for hedging, and thus, the participation by Institutional Investors (I will address this in a later article as well). 

Banfield's call to 'tank the price of STEEM,' so as to force the Whales and other Witnesses to comply with his wishes, was juvenile and merited the Whales reversing their Witness votes, causing him to lose his Top 20 Witness status. I withdrew my vote as well. 

As a Top 20 Witness, Banfield had been granted Command Authority and with such command came responsibility. Whatever one might expect from a Top 20 Witness, surely it precludes, irrespective of circumstances, calls to sabotage the very blockchain one has been charged to protect. While he was entitled to say what he said (and not be censored with downvoting), in saying it, he forfeited his right to command. The ends did not justify the means.

During the American Revolution, the Americans were fortunate to have an excellent general in their midst. Indeed, he was Washington's favorite. His name was Benedict Arnold. He was strategically and tactically brilliant and he looked after his troops. Nevertheless, the Continental Congress screwed him over mightily: Denying him the credit he deserved; blocking promotions he'd earned; and even refusing to reimburse him for personal funds he'd spent feeding and clothing his men. He had every right to be aggrieved and every right to voice his grievances. But his right to redress did not include disclosing to the British the defense plans and capabilities of the fortress he'd been charged to protect, West Point.

When to Pull The Trigger 

Since joining Steemit, I've had two occasions to downvote someone. One I took, the other I didn't.

My Downvote

My daughter's cat had just died. I wrote a poem in memorial and posted it on my blog. A number of people left heart-felt condolences. It was a sad and somber moment of grieving.

So imagine my surprise when this came in:

catfacts (50)  ·  5 months ago 

Grown cats have 30 teeth. Kittens have about 26 temporary teeth, which they lose when they are about 6 months old. 

My initial reply:

quillfire (48)  ·  5 months ago

@catfacts, Yours was the near-instant, and first, reply ... a bot I presume (or an asshole). And you wonder why people hate spam. 

I didn't downvote the comment immediately because I wasn't absolutely certain it was spam. As you can see in my comment, I held out the possibility that it could simply have been an asshole. But then, another comment came in:

catfacts (50)  ·  5 months ago

A cat’s eyesight is both better and worse than humans. It is better because cats can see in much dimmer light and they have a wider peripheral view. It’s worse because they don’t see color as well as humans do. Scientists believe grass appears red to cats. 

OK, spam. Downvoted. 

Make no mistake, I didn't want to wait for confirmation. This kind of BS is not what you want in your memorial to your deceased pet (and good friend) that, you hope, your brokenhearted daughter will be able to revisit for years to come. But your commitment to Free Speech only becomes relevant when the speech you're protecting is something you find obnoxious. 

My Non-Downvote

A bit of background. A buddy of mine, @derangedvisions (Wes), had produced an hour-long documentary about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, recounting the experiences of a Vietnam Vet, Lynn “Dobie” Gillies. 

Gillies, and a number of other helicopter pilots, were ordered to rescue a group of Marines who were in an intense firefight, surrounded and about to get slaughtered. The airspace above the battle was filled with bullets and so many of the other helicopter pilots used their discretion and turned back. Gillies made the decision to risk the gauntlet of steel ... and saved many of the embattled Marines. Gillies made it out unscathed. His flight crew, men who'd entrusted their lives to him (and his discretion), were all killed.

Wes sent me the trailer via DM and we discussed the full documentary at length. We're both ex-military and Wes, too, suffers from PTSD as a result of his time in Iraq. His motivation in making the documentary was to inspire vets with the condition to seek help as ... EVERY DAY - 22 veterans commit suicide. I was so inspired by Wes' documentary that I wrote a poem/article promoting the documentary and its upcoming release on his blog.  

When the documentary was aired, the comments started coming in. PTSD, and its consequences, have touched many lives and a lot of people had stories to share. It was cathartic. A lot of those people, of course, were vets ... and the whole Band of Brothers thing - it never goes away. This was Sacred Ground.

But someone always has to be an asshole:

krystal-paws (44)  ·  4 months ago

FUCK THAT SHIT WAR IS HOT FUCK US ALL IN THE AS U PUSSY EASS BITCHES 

I received a DM from Wes. He was besides himself. This was ... sacrilege. (With grammatical errors to add insult to injury.) WHO would do such a thing? Freedom of Speech! Are you kidding me? But then I thought things through a bit and this was my reply:

quillfire (48)  ·  4 months ago

@krystal-paws, 

I presume what you meant to say was: 

FUCK THAT SHIT. WAR IS HOT. FUCK US ALL IN THE ASS, YOU PUSSY-ASS BITCHES. 

Given the context of this post, an hour-long Documentary about a Vietnam Vet who suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), made by an Iraq Vet that is similarly afflicted, it’s hard to imagine the callousness required to leave such a Comment. The objective of the Documentary was to provide inspiration to vets in similar situations to seek help … so as to reduce the rather alarming statistic of 22 suicides per day amongst veterans. Irrespective of your political inclinations or views of the military, it’s hard to imagine your taking umbrage with such a noble ambition. 

My first instinct was to downvote and flag you, for I too am a veteran, and your comment inspires in me a deep sense of moral disgust. Upon further reflection, however, I have decided to do the opposite. Instead of trying to hide your comment, I would encourage, instead, that it be spotlighted. 

The men and women who serve in the military of the United States of America take an oath to defend the ideas and ideals for which this country stands. Central to such ideas and ideals is Freedom of Speech. You have spoken. And now too, have I. And now too … should others.

So here is what I propose:  

1. No one downvote or flag this Comment. Indeed, upvote it sufficiently that it remains as the TOP Comment so as to be seen by everyone.

2. If you have already downvoted it, remove your downvote.

3. No one downvote or flag any post by @krystal-paws. Such retribution is beneath the honor of the man who made this Documentary, and the men featured within it.

4. Comment on this thread. Let it become a mile long.

5. Upvote this Post. Making a documentary isn’t cheap. Ensure that @derangedvisions can continue making more.

6. ReSteem this Post. Ensure that an even wider audience sees this Documentary and is inspired to think about both it, and the reaction to it (by at least some portion of society) as exemplified by @krystal-paws.

Personally, I was so inspired by the Documentary’s Trailer, that I wrote a poem (and created a post) in its honor and did whatever I could to promote the Full Documentary’s release this past Saturday. If required, I shall write another. 

@derangedvisions, one soldier to another … this is your decision. It’s your Documentary. If you’d rather just downvote and flag it, just say the word and I shall join the others. But I remind you: You and I, and a great many others who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, are to live by a code that is meant to be exemplary. Think carefully about what it means to be an exemplar.  

What followed in the comment/reply thread, I think you ought to go and read ... it is, ennobling. If I'm being honest, it brought tears to my eyes. 

Honor. 

We Can't Have It Both Ways

Nothing in life is free. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Either you respect Freedom of Speech, and the obnoxious crap that it empowers, or you don't. But if you don't, understand that you are undoing the most hard-fought-for freedom in the history of humanity. For whomever controls speech, controls thought ... and when you curtail the former, you curtail the latter. And such thought-control has been the objective of every tyrant, terrorist and totalitarian in history.

That said, not every cry of victimhood has a victim ... sometimes, it's just an asshole getting what he deserves.  

Quill.