You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Obsessive Downvoting /Tagging Posts- A Method of Silencing & Censoring Curators on Steemit
What I'd like to see is an end to flagging:
FLAGGING
I want to see that bollocks GONE!
A downvote could carry the average weight of the upvotes on that comment or post.
Why should a fired up numpty with $800 in their wallet be allowed to censor a comment by some lowlife plankton with only $2.45 in their wallet?
Flagging is censorship by those who have more money, exactly like in the real world, but Steemit does not have to be the same as the real world!
I gather from some of the comments on my previous posts on this subject,
that a few people strongly disagree with this opinion (but most of them are not plankton...)
https://steemit.com/steemit/@sift666/my-unreasonable-list-of-demands-for-a-better-steemit
Well said. If each person's down-vote carried the same weight wouldn't it mean that only behaviour/content that the majority finds objectionable would be penalized?
Exactly.. for a downvote to hold more weight than someone elses upvote is robbery.
Yeah.. I have yet to figure out how much their flags and downvotes are worth.. I didn't see it on steemd.
This add on is handy - https://steemit.com/steemdev/@armandocat/steemit-more-info-1-4-chrome-extension-firefox-extension
This is awesome! Exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much! Added it and now I can see how much bloom was downvoting me lol
It's really handy - I like to go into settings and change a few things - mainly disabling the histogram.
It was bloom that inspired my post from 4 months ago
See with a reputation of abuse and harrasement why hasn't anything been done to limit his ability to target accounts like he did with mine and others? It just seems to go against the whole premise of steemit being a community built on cordial interactions which is what I was told by many people in the beginning.
The vast majority of people on Steemit are awesome but occasionally you can encounter one who isn't.
The reason they get away with it for a while is because if we start flagging them we will be just like them.
But you are now just at the point of having full backup - if any of your posts ever get flagged from now on your followers will back you up and this spineless weasel will probably stick to harassing people who don't have backup.
Quality content wins over time and you have that - sooner or later this guy is going to piss off the wrong person and learn what an angry whale can do to his reputation!
It does go against the premise of cordiality that Steemit demonstrates.
This premise, however, is an effect of rewards being potential to posts and comments. Thus, the prospect of 'doing something' is also counter to the same source of cordiality, as it would entail potential to draw flags.
While some folks will do this, in some circumstances, such as your own, where you have a dedicated following with sufficient stake to counter the flags and remain immune to them, those circumstances are both rare, and unlikely to pursue the offender beyond the limits of your blog.
Commenting so I remember to check this when I am off my phone
GET OFF YOUR PHONE! - you will turn into a bot...
Did something happen to this add on? I don't see today @sift666
It seems to be working OK for me - that is using Firefox - I usually use Opera but I just use Firefox for Steemit because the add on doesn't work with Opera
Yeah it seems to be working again.. not sure what happened.. I haven't changed browsers.
You might find this of interest - sometimes things all work out (there is a bit of a back story to this!)
https://steemit.com/steemit/@techslut/why-i-am-quitting-steemit-and-you-should-to
I strongly agree with your sentiment, however, I also strongly agree with the logical corollary, which is that their upvote shouldn't carry more weight either.
It makes of the right to free speech the right of money to speak.
I vehemently oppose that, because it renders humanity chattel.
While providing rewards for content has produced an exciting community on Steemit, stake weighting voting power has produced endless problems, injustice, and oligarchical concentration of rewards.
While those with the most stake, including the founders, who mined theirs, large investors, witnesses, etc., disagree, as the parties benefiting from the abusive situation, they should not be expected to altruistically seek justice.
They should, but such moral and ethical standards are increasingly scarce, and we shouldn't naively expect them to.
When wealth is used altruistically, such as @surpassinggoogle not self voting with a delegated stake from @ned, or @ned making that delegation without charge, as have @fulltimegee and @stellabelle, those people have shown a remarkable adherence to principle, clearly above and beyond what is common.
Those of them that still support stake weighted voting haven't fully realized the implications of it, and I suspect that they will, in time. IIRC, they all support stake weighted voting, while fully demonstrating an altruistic dedication to principle.
I think this simply demonstrates that people are incapable of perfect understanding, just like me.
If the principle of stake weighting is wrong in flags, it is wrong in upvotes too. Either way, it's wrong, and you are right.
Thanks!
It's a tricky one - equal weight votes give rise to moron zones like youtub...
I don't think so, because rewards. It isn't that stake weighting causes people to be civil on Steemit, but that being uncivil might prevent them from being rewarded.
Youtool rewards no comments, AFAIK, and fewer and fewer channels not owned by buddies of Eric Schmidt.
This is an excellent idea. It would mean an end to buying influence and destroying people's reputation and business... A frequent tactic of the current Social Media Mafia.
It really is something that should be dealt with. On all of our other media platforms we can choose to block an abuser... but here it seems that we are expected to just deal with their abuse, until they choose to stop if they choose to stop.