Can you point to one of the demonstrably false statements?
You have every right to downvote, if it's what you choose to do. However, have you considered that some people may see it as a violation of the non-aggression principle? People work really hard on this platform to get creative, and generate content that they think others might find valuable.
For example clarity's previous post was sitting at a value of approximately 50 before you gave it a good smack with your whamhammer; then for a short time, the value was at zero. How do you think that makes people feel?
How would you feel if open-minded whales who sided with clarity began a downvoting campaign against your posts, and effectively nullified the upvote efforts of dozens if not hundreds of people who found them beneficial? How would you feel if in real life people could cancel your paycheck?
Downvoting is part of the game for now, but it's my contention that it spiritually violates the non-aggression principle, and that people have the right to defend themselves. This type of thing is bound to lead to organized downvoting wars.
When people realize that downvoting is soft-censorship, or realize that downvoting might be a covert steemit tax on value, then they will simply abandon the platform.
I encourage you to use your dev power to change the platform, for the good. Keep downvoting, but detach the value debit, and soft-censorship. I can see down this road, and in my opinion downvoting will lead to the end of Steemit.
P.S. If you think that someone is being demonstrably false, or spreading propaganda, why not simply address them in the comments instead of initiating aggressive action? All of the energies being devoted to downvoting wars steals from your creative powers, and creates enemies. It's more beneficial to disagree in comments and tell people why you disagree. The thing that I love about Steemit, is that it challenges me to get creative. I can see how getting downvoted would make people not only upset, but also disgusted with the platform.
Very well stated...
You seem to be confused. The amount of money listed under a post is not yours. It is an estimate of the payout given the votes up until that point in time. To regard that as your own paycheck is ridiculous.
It’s not yours until all the votes are counted, at payout time.
Just like an election, you don’t get to claim what you believe to be yours until everyone who cares to vote has done so.
Flagging can never take anything away from you.
I missed the part where you point to one of his "demonstrably false statements".
I notice that your downvotes also generate downvotes from @blacklist-a.
Two simple questions for you:
Where's that steemit judge jury and executioner photo when ya need it. :D
No you didn't, you're just being passive-aggressive.
You've got a really bad attitude, @sneak
Yeah it denies him nothing except the rewards bestowed to the author by others, which he can use to buy bandwith.
The people of steemit obviously agree with him. One might be wise not to anger the giant...
How about a comprimise? Remove the flag but don't apologize. Then toughen up a little. It's just words. From time to time we all fall on our faces. No biggie.
Write a retort. Engage him in debate. But don't flag needlessly. That's a garbage tactic.
If you think downvoting a post on the internet is a violation of the NAP, then you have a lot more reading to do, and we have nothing further to discuss.
"If you think downvoting a post on the internet is a violation of the NAP, then you have a lot more reading to do, and we have nothing further to discuss. - sneak"I called it a spiritual violation of the NAP. You performed an action that resulted in a type of soft-censorship. Not only that, had you not performed that action, those potential rewards that were amassing would not have been diverted back to the reward pool.
Think of it this way, I could legally sleep with your girlfriend, but it wouldn't be morally right. Yes, technically I did nothing illegal, but the metaphysics of those types of actions are very harmful.
Legally, the U.S. government could drain every bank account in the United States and pay it all back to the Federal Reserve Bank. The reason they can do this, is because every FRN on the planet has been loaned into existence by the Fed. All of the money belongs to them, so they can take it all back whenever they want.
However, the moral implications, and the consequences of those kinds of actions would be devastating. Basically, you’re fucking up people's experience, and although it might not be censorship in the technical sense, 95% of the people who use the platform are going to internalize and perceive your actions as both theft, and censorship.
Side note: I noticed when you click the flag button, the parameters (or guidelines) for flagging are no longer present. When did that change? Or do they only show that once?
Also, did you find one of Clarity's demonstrably false statements yet? I think it's quite possible that you are abusing the spirit of the flagging tool. End result, if too many people engage in this type of behavior, people will see Steemit as a platform that engages in censorship, and the platform will bleed out just like all the others are.
So you Devs need to figure it out, cause we're on top of it. All of the intricacies with respect to the technicality of whether or not it's theft, or whether or not it's censorship isn't going to change the perceptions that you impress on people when the platform allows for things that so closely resemble theft, and censorship.
At some point, when it reaches extremes people will simply-and-universally boycott out of disgust. I don't want to see that happen, and I'm sure that nobody else does either.
That's my two cents, take it, leave it, flag it, stick it in your pipe and smoke it. Do what you do.
I'd advise you to try not awaken the giant, but I think you already have. The Streisand effect had already taken hold, and even if you bury this comment. It's going to echo thunderously throughout the platform!
I am the butterfly today!
Yes, everyone is going to know you're a conspiracy theory whackjob, shaming children who just watched their friends get murdered. I can't wait until steemit has enough sane people with stake on it to flag all you tinfoil hat nonsense peddlers to zero forever.
It's absolutely disgusting to see some of the idiocy that earns on this platform. Thank fuck it's only because of a handful of early adopters who are the sole cause of it. Soon they'll be outnumbered by well-staked people who have two brain cells to rub together, and you and your chicken little ilk will stop earning and go back to whatever butthole of the internet you used to post your chemtrail and antivax and crisis actor and pizzagate rubbish before you came here.
You've checked all the boxes with that one. Demagoguery (name calling), Conflation of issues (lumping into categories), extreme vitriol and hatred to incite frustration, blatant use of children, desire to control ideas on platform through mass thinking.
Recognizing the Enemy of Truth: Cryptome’s Guide To Forum Spies – GCHQ and COINTELPRO Disruption Techniques
https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/05/05/recognizing-the-enemy-of-truth-cryptomes-guide-to-forum-spies-gchq-and-cointelpro-disruption-techniques/
@sneak you said that I was: "shaming children who just watched their friends get murdered"
PROVE YOUR CLAIM!
Your gas-lighting attempts mean nothing on this platform! Is it standard practice for Steemit developers to engage in slanderous accusations?
I love Steemit! I particularly love that wallets are publicly auditable, because it shows associations that would otherwise be hidden, such as between you, @blacklist-a, and @bloom.
It reveals a desperate attempt to conceal information that challenges the status quo, and that you are conspirators losing that fight.
You seem to be wholly dependent on the idea that your little stake is all it takes to change the perception of reality to what supports your particular derangement. This is further revealed by your failure to provide any debate other than flags and ad hominems. @bloom is worse. He doesn't even dare ad hominems, because that would open him up to flags, and demonstrate just how little support he actually has in the community.
It's why he has to be funded off chain. The only reason you have any cause to feel justified in your statements is your stake.
That is ephemeral, illusory, and worse for you, temporary. I really can't think of any less substantial support for ideas than the person promoting them has a stake.
You really should join @bloom in completely hiding your vitriol behind flags alone, rather than revealing the insubstantial nature of your views with posting actual words, if you want to be most effective in your attempts to censor.
It leaves a smaller window for folks to examine what you're trying to achieve.
Actually, you should either put up or shut up about the facts you're trying to twist, and since you've demonstrated you have no reason behind your flags, utterly failing to point out a single fact other than your complete subservience to propaganda, it's obvious that flags are all you have; your stake is all you can rely on to preserve your deranged world.
I don't envy you the cognitive dissonance that's going to hit you, someday.
It'll be a good thing in retrospect, after you've absorbed the reality it reveals, but it'll be difficult to ride out, given the depth of your hostility to facts and debate.
Good luck with that.
@sneak whatever happened to scrolling past? Don't be so thin skinned!