You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Strike: Apology to Followers and Announcement of Indefinite Break from Blogging
This post just gave me an idea. We who post are one of the backbones of this platform. We could also "experiment" and call a Pen-down strike to oppose this madness by not posting anything for a period of 48 hrs. Then they can flag away to their hearts content. But we can show them that if there are no posts, flags are irrelevant.
abit doesn't care if people leave. He said it's a good thing if they do.
Did he explain why?
Yeah. He said that people who are here for the money should probably leave anyway. I guess he doesn't understand what STEEM/Steemit is, which is troubling, considering that he's a top witness.
"He said that people who are here for the money should probably leave anyway." This doesn't make any sense. That's the whole point of blogging here instead of somewhere else, you might make some money.
Well, tell him that. He doesn't seem to comprehend it.
Check out my latest post !!! Im tired of being treated like crap by these bully whales !! I SAY STRIKE !!!
https://steemit.com/steemit/@karenmckersie/hello-abit-smooth-steemit-stike-notice-is-on-your-experiment-did-not-work
I'd support that. Whether you realize it or not we are on the same page in pointing out that the system is broken and needs to be revamped to remove both the whale domination of influence and the need for downvoting to limit that influence. We may disagree on the particular nature of the problem but we absolutely agree that there is a problem
I do realize and agree that we need to find a solution, but I strongly disagree with the approach taken of using flags to achieve an end. Flagging on steemit, AFAIK, is seen as a form of violence by most who have its best interest.
I may be wrong, but I feel the same logic used to write good computer code may not work when it comes to human emotions and this experiment is trampling quite a few, as you can make out by the surge in angry posts/comments lately.
If it was an attempt at waking up people to realize the broken parts of the system, it has worked marvelously, and some users have gotten so shaken up with this "enlightenment", they are even ready to leave the platform.
So, as another user who seeks success for the platform, I implore that the experiment be reconsidered and a healthy debate started again, because after this fiasco I believe we will have a meaningful one.
I respectfully disagree that the experiment is clearly harmful just because some people choose to interpret actions or react to them in a certian way. I would suggest you read some of the comments and posts from many users who find it to be a positive thing and do not consider reasonable, measured downvotng to be a 'violent' approach (most of my downvotes on this initiative, FWIW, are <10% vote weight and have only a modest effect on not even reducing rewards but merely reducing the amount of increase of rewards). You can find some of those posts and comments on the Trending page, but there are many others.
Thanks for your comment @smooth!
It's a free market. People paid and also worked for that influence. Synthetically trying to redistribute everything is a self-important move, in my opinion, that is severely compromising the platform. You vote down people's posts, but then your own trail voters upvote your bot posts. I'll be back blogging when all this stops and I'm not punished by Communists for working hard to deliver content to my valued audience.
On this point I disagree. We have a voting system and my vote and views on why to vote are as valid as any other (and also, BTW, part of that free market). Nothing is 'synthetic' here.
I have never denied it is part of the free market. I am not saying it is "unfair" either. I am saying it is a misguided and illogical at balancing things out which, contrary to its stated purpose, doesn't help smaller users but hurts them. It punishes success as well in established users.