You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: If I was a bankster, this is how I would sabotage the Steem blockchain
An interesting angle @wwf and I commend you for, want of a better phrase, sticking to your guns and keeping them in the holsters.
My only qualm is the use of the word 'violence' in relation to flags - i'm taking a slight assumption here that this is what you mean and so I won't over-do my words..
A flag is given, at the click of the mouse (not a real mouse), for a couple of reasons, and one of these reasons is a 'Disagreement on rewards'. I like to think that all disagreements don't end in violence, no matter how many disagreements take place.
I understand your feelings towards what is happening at present, and am grateful to have your insight and views.
Thank you.
Thank you for taking such a mature approach to discussing these topics. I respect that greatly. Let us work through the idea of 'disagreement on rewards' and the term 'violence' to see if we can work it through.
My argument in my post suggests that injury has been done, emotionally and financially. Not only to the individual receiving the rewards but to those who gifted the rewards through their upvote.
By removing the rewards we silence those who expressed themselves through the upvote. It would be like me digging into the ballot box during an election because I disagreed with the people who were voting.
But if we want to resort to a purely intellectual and legalistic argument, people are well within their 'right' to down vote.
For me, this is not a legalistic issue, but rather an issue of what is right and wrong. To take away something from another, which results in emotional trauma is violent. The problem with legalistic approaches is that violence is a means to an end and is often justified.
From a spiritual point of view, it demands that we not engage in violence, whether it is legally justified or not. That is the premise from which I speak. That harm can be done with the simple click of a mouse, check mark in a box when we vote or even behind the symbolism of a dollar bill when we go to the store to buy some candy.
That is where I am coming from. Do you care to share your thoughts on it? You mentioned you had a problem with the word 'violence' but you did not really explain why.
downvote is taking away gifts given by others. That is stealing, no matter how justified it may be. Stealing is violent.
Hi again
Thank you for explaining your views again and in depth.
I suppose my 'problem' can be explained by my understanding of the quote you gave:
'Physical Force', is what my understanding of the word violence is. While the clicking of the flag button could be done with plenty more force than is required for the computer to understand the requested action, I just think the word here seems out of place.
When I vote in a ballot, and take the opposite side to my friend, I don't wish any harm or negative force towards them - I'm just choosing what I see is right at that point. And, I would hope that if we shared our vote (and disagreement on where it should have been placed), that violence would not come to mind or be an action.
I suppose a second point could be raised from the quote and that is the damage to property. Until the post is 'paid out', one could say that the pending reward is not theirs, and still part of the rewards pool that everyone shares?
There are many different definitions of 'force'. the one you speak of is in regards to physical strength and when you do that you can only see as far as the mouse sitting beside your computer.
However, force also means 'power to influence, affect or control' and when you use that definition, suddenly the influence moves far beyond the mouse and can then spread to any corner of the world. It spreads that far because we built tools to extend our influence to anywhere.
We have great influence over people and we must be forever vigilant to ensure that our influence does not result in harm. When somebody upvotes they are exercising their influence. It is called curating. When we flag somebody to take away that vote, we wiped out somebody else influence AND having a significant negative emotional impact on the one receiving the rewards. That is harmful and violent.
Your scenario regarding when the transfer of 'property' occurs is the exact question that I talk about in my post. From a legalistic point of view, one could argue that the transfer of title for the property does not occur until it is paid out and is transferred into the individuals wallet. However from an emotional and spiritual point of view, the individual has made a connection with those rewards the moment they were gifted. A spiritual being who has the capacity to empathize with others must take this emotional attachment into consideration when making decisions. That same individual would most likely NOT do the down vote because it would cause emotional harm to the individual and also would cause financial harm too! That same individual would also recognize that by doing the down vote would also muzzle the free speech of others and that is a very dangerous precedent to set. In order to maintain freedom we must allow others to say what they want without taking any actions to shut them up. The moment we do that, we are all harmed.
This issue is about freedom! If you fast forward to when he speaks about the two communists crashing their rally, you may find more support for what I speak about.
Down voting is part of the system actually and an important aspect of it. You may not like it or disagree but it is what it is. Also, flagging is not censorship. If you accept the upvotes then you must accept the flags as well. Rewards are not due to anyone until the 7 day window has passed as you are well aware.
To claim that flagging is not censorship is a significant claim. Care to explain how flagging for spam or if rewards are unfair does not fit into the definition of censorship?
By flagging somebody are you not expressing your own moral code and punishing them for not meeting that code or punishing the curators for not fitting in with that code?
Your position, while it attempts to support the flagging, does not convince me.
May I also remind you that just because it is part of the system does not make it morally or ethically correct. Violence and coercion has been a part of systems for thousands of years, made legal in fact. But it does not make it ethically correct.
When I stand on the principle of 'love thy neighbour as thy self', I must conclude that flagging is not love at all. It is theft and violent. I refuse to participate with that.
If you found a way to justify it and engage in flagging, then that is your journey and path. I refuse to follow you down that path.
I love the words you use: Punishment, violence, coercion, morals, theft, moral code.
LMAO: You seem to be slightly extreme for a social media platform. No I’m not going to get into a debate surrounding flags but I can say they aren’t going anywhere as they are vital in expressing opinion. If you don’t agree, then maybe this isn’t the place for you. Plenty of platforms where you don’t earn anything so the upvotes/downvotes there wouldn’t be theft.
Your response is to minimize what I am saying, mock me by laughing at me and pointing me to the door.
Do you see the covert violence you just engaged in? You call me extreme? I have zero tolerance for that kind of behaviour. This conversation is done and you are now muted.
You would be correct. Anyone that takes a social media platform to the extreme of having to compare flag use as “violent” deserves to be mocked. The dramatic use of words is quite hilarious.
Thank you for that excellent example.