I asked for comment from Peakd team members on the censorship of @joe.public, and did not get any.
Because it's not peakd that is censoring the content. The nodes have some build-in filter for some accounts so we just don't get the data for some of them.
Do you have any comment regarding @joe.public being API censored without any justification other than his opposition to Bernie's spam and having annoyed @themarkymark?
The account have been added to the list before Hive ...and we don't review all the account added to the list by other parties.
I am confident that if Peakd doesn't setup a full RPC node that is immune to the hardcoded lists, it will lose customers to the first UI that does
Setting up a full node and running the frontend on that node will create a very centralized system (similar to what you have now on Steem). The opposite of what we are trying to do.
Right now we have a frontend that can be powered by different backend nodes so the choice is up to our users and the number of available node options.
I appreciate your reply. I did not think or imply that Peakd had control of the hardcode, and am disappointed you did not vigorously oppose that censorship, but you are free to speak your mind as you will.
Using nodes that are censored is not increasing decentralization, while running your own node does strongly decentralize because it prevents that centralized censorship the other nodes effect. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Increasing node options by just one would go a long ways to preventing @themarkymark from being the sole arbiter of who gets to post on Peakd, and that will strongly oppose that centralization of power on Hive.
You are free to support that censorship if that is your actual opinion. I do not recommend obfuscating such support with disingenuity that deprecates your integrity, however. Stating that adding a node that doesn't censor Hive accounts is centralizing is not factually correct, and reduces confidence in your veracity.
Inaccurate as usual, I am not the sole arbiter and on Steem I had zero control and only could make suggestions.
This, AFAIK, is the first mention of this. You appear now to be the sole party in control of censorship. You do not now make it clear what limitations on that power exist, nor any other details.
This statement, as much as it might surprise you to learn, does not greatly comfort me that all is well regarding Hive censorship policy being open and transparent.
What possible good reason is there to hide who is doing what regarding censorship?
Things done in darkness tempt folks to moral hazard, and then, when the light is shone on their acts, their shame is revealed for all to see. Do not let that happen to you.
Make censorship a public process on Hive, to protect Hive from power to censor wielded in darkness. You know you would oppose any other wielding the power to censor in secret you now appear to wield at your sole option.
I oppose it being done without the light of public review, and that is what is best for Hive.
Do the right thing, insofar as you have power to do it.
You are like a broken record with lots of scratches (inaccuracies). Like I said, I am not the sole person responsible. Go bark up some other tree.
Or should Hive just settle for your bare claim?
Should I go back to our prior conversation and quote you regarding censorship? It is very important that it be done with extreme care on Hive, because we have a good example of how it could go wrong here right over on Steem.
I don't want to keep repeating inaccurate claims, but until factual information is availed me, I am unable to make more accurate claims. As I have just revealed, I will absolutely take back any inaccuracies immediately as I discover them.
You have information you are not sharing, and then have the audacity to blame me for not knowing it. Hive is not safe from censorship when it is done in secret, by unknown parties.
Protect the Hive. Speak the truth.
I appreciate you keeping me in the loop. Except as necessary for security and to prevent economic harm to the community, as through scams and spam that affects the network, flags are generally inadvisable, IMHO.
I have had to mute @baah, unfortunately, despite my interest in his unconventional views and raging criticisms, his incessant and repetitious comments were just overwhelming my ability to track other, no less important, communications.
I am utterly flabbergasted by your assertion that @bloom and @baah are somehow connected. Do you have some evidence to support this? I would be very interested in a network of @baah accounts.
I am also aware of the many new accounts being used to nuisance flag, and have simply come to expect multiple flags without consequence on posts. Seems like I am left unharassed more often than not, but this is not true for some.
I note that @lucylin is pretty upset at @baah/@bloom flags of late. Is he aware of your belief regarding the association?
I have been seeking to put pressure on Marty and his ilk to get you off the total censorship list. I am confident that there is substantive discussion of the situation behind the scenes, but have no confidence mere words from me are nominal to effect that goal. Not much else I can do, sadly.
I have sought to stress that allowing covert application of censorship direly threatens security of Hive, and cannot fail to create a slippery slope leading straight to the cesspool of censorship Steem has become. Marty may not twitch at the comparison, but if you had that power he exercises presently, he'd be apoplectic, and most people realize that censorship must be extremely restricted to utter necessity, rather than casually and commonly how to deal with - and this is key in your example - folks whose opinions differ.
Thanks for revealing the stuff of which you're made by continuing to undertake to maintain speech despite the draconian censorship you've faced. I honestly find your persistence inspirational.
...can you post the linked accounts connected to sheep and wither?
(drawing up my counter strategy, so any info would be good!)