It's not censorship. Post all you want. You're just not entitled to get paid for it if stakeholders vote not to pay you.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's not censorship. Post all you want. You're just not entitled to get paid for it if stakeholders vote not to pay you.
Sounds like you're describing a slave / master relationship ... like it's okay or something.
Hardly. It's rewards you may get or may not get. There's no coercion involved whatsoever.
Flags are censorship, and that is why they exist per the White Paper. You and others simply refuse to use the accepted definition of censorship, as if that actually matters.
It doesn't, because we live in reality, and flagging content suppresses it, which is why you do it. You do so predatorily, profiting from deprecating Hive and it's primary value of free speech.
Economic stress is a substantial source of psychological stress, and psychological stress is the leading indicator of life expectancy. It is false to claim that manipulating Hive's economy is not coercive.
https://odysee.com/@lancewdetrick:b/IA---Denis-Rancourt-on-there-being-no-evidence-of-a-pandemic---Jerm-Warfare:2
Your lack of philanthropy will be your undoing. It is the very wealth you have accumulated that deprives you of your ability to adapt and sustain the civil society on which you are utterly dependent, and current geopolitical conditions strongly indicate that the time that inability will become of existential import is either presently, or soon.
How will you feel when your tokens evaporate before your eyes, and you realize that if you had strengthened the community instead you'd have goodwill to depend on instead of your worthless stacks of tokens?
I know how desperation feels, because I experienced it when Citi stole my property. Your solvency depends on the UN continuing to allow Hive and exchanges to be resolved by DNS, and the UN has begun taking sites down it does not want online.
I suspect this is goodbye, because I don't think Hive and cryptocurrency exchanges will long survive the introduction of CBDCs, and that has already begun.
Good bye @smooth.
"Flags" don't exist in the white paper. Elewhere this thread I linked to an archive of the early steemit web site that didn't have "flags", it had upvote and downvote. Go look.
We all presumably do what we think is best for our investment, even if we happen not to agree on what that happens to be. For sure I'm not guaranteed to be taking the right approach, even though I think I am and you don't. And even so, many blockchains have failed and will fail, so I know there is a significant chance my stake in Hive declines in value or becomes worthless. And further you are not wrong that decentralized blockchains may collapse altogether (in value even if not operationally). Not what I would like to see of course, but it goes with the territory.
Pedantry regarding voting is without merit.
Free speech was the specific use case Hive was intended to reward financially, and departing from that has continually degraded the platform and community ever since. Proposing that purpose now be abandoned altogether is tantamount to euthanizing an athlete after amputating their legs because they can't run the mile competitively anymore.
Never more than now has free speech been more valuable, or necessary to our very lives and humanity, and consideration of value beyond mere financial considerations has never been more potential of immense profit to them that are capable of it.
Your wallet will have no value to you, regardless of the financial worth of the tokens in it, if censorship silences forthright speech and malicious lies are all society is availed during a global crisis of governance specifically bent on duplicity and covert genocide. You can't take it with you into a mass grave.
You, and all on Hive and alive, deserve better than such a fate, and it is now, and has always been, my position that free speech is essential to our survival, while mere money is but a convenience while we yet live.
I urge you to act to protect Hive's original remit and profit not only yourself thereby, but the community that will thereafter be able to increase and multiply that goodwill and fortune into treasure beyond the dreams of Midas.
Troubles are upon us, and to prevail will take extraordinary acts by ordinary people, but the decentralization and independent means that will follow our victory over the totalitarian tyranny oligarchs seek to implement over us all will usher in a golden age unimaginable to us now.
Seek the greater reward for your investment.
And it does, but not everything gets rewards.
No one said everything should. What a crappy straw man.
The issue you're dancing around is despite quality work, massive engagement, and some of the most diligent promotion of the platform that has ever been undertaken, @kennyskitchen is getting flagged because of differences of opinion.
You will deny it's censorship to suppress speech, but rational people will accept the longstanding ubiquitously accepted official definition of censorship anyway.
Dozens of quality creators marketing Hive to the wider world have been driven from the platform by this mechanism that I can personally recall, and no fewer than thousands just weren't willing to even start after seeing this kinda shit.
Free speech is far more valuable than whatever rewards you milk by censoring creators you disagree with politically. Censorship is bad for business, and worse for society. Even though you may not agree with it now, you might later. A lot of folks are having epiphanies of late, now that Jacinda Ardern has stated she will never stop jabbing her subjects, ever, Israel just announced 7 more boosters are going to be mandated, and even the enemedia are admitting the jabs are causing massive numbers of heart attacks and cardiovascular injuries.
The 'conspiracy theories' you don't censor just might turn out to be timely warnings that save your life soon. I give it two more weeks (/s).
You're not benefiting the platform, the community, or promoting quality content, despite your continued misdirection. Folks know that, even if they're unable to state it succinctly.
You're personally profiting financially from censorship, devaluing Hive by doing so, and claiming otherwise. It's disingenuous, counterproductive, and a huge waste of time, so you must really need the water muddy to keep rollin' deep.
Honestly, your life is far more valuable than your wallet. When you quit censoring people like @kennyskitchen, a life you save might be your own. You are ill advised to profit by censoring him when he's providing you that valuable service of cutting through bullshit being promulgated by lying genocidal war criminals to enable you and everyone else to defend themselves from existential harm.
You should be upvoting him instead.
It's tyranny whatever you want to call it. This platform should change its profile in order to be completely honest.
And be sure to include the fact that what your content is worth will be decided by a centralized authority, not by the market,
Why belong to anything that puts you at the mercy of some insane authority? @kennyskitchen , @tlavagabond and god knows who else has added no value as decided by some tyrannical authority is ludicrous. Blunt truth.
Sure, you can say whatever you want but you won't get paid if it doesn't meet with the central authorities approval.
Need any help with that new profile? I could post it on youtube for you. Just trying to help.
I have an idea. Just admit "you" were wrong and change things around in the interest of good will and freedom. Naw, tyrants never have good will.
The more "you" try to sell it, the more irritated it makes me.
And to be fair here as well, markets determine value through both selling and buying, which are the equivalent of up or downvotes here. To be a fair market both the +/- need to exist.
Do they need to exist as is? No, I'm sure there's a better way and these posts, since they address this specific issue should hopefully motivate some ideas. Those ideas can then become blogs, helping to keep the topic front and center and even gain popularity leading to change.
to be fair? Fair is not in this equation. It's just another "market" controlled by a few dishonest individuals.. you know, that thing we were trying to escape in coming here.
Life in general isn't fair.
Much of the unfairness in life is directly generated by humans and that is the case here. Few things really piss me off but at the top of the list is cruelty / unkindness. That always trips my trigger like nothing else can.
Humans that can actually justify in their own twisted minds being unkind are what we should be trying to evolve from. We, humans, can make things better, more fair, if you will, for everyone.
AND .. we can do that today, in a heartbeat, with a change of heart, an enlightened soul, letting kindness and love lead. I truly hope those guilty parties will take the time to consider how they can do the right thing and change the course because as it stands right now, they risk destroying this platform.
They need to apologize and set things right with critical thinking and good will. Are they "big" enough to do that. Do they have a conscience sufficiently developed that will allow them to just .. tell the truth. Too much to ask?
hope not but time will tell
So, when one stakeholder pays for a post with an upvote (they way y'all have been describing this - stakeholders PAYING for the content rewards), and another stakeholder comes along and deletes those rewards (for author & curator), how are they not stealing funds - from the stakeholder at least, if not the author?
Because the first stakeholder does not "pay" a post, they vote for rewards. The votes (both for and against rewards) are added up AT THE END, and then rewards, if any, are paid.
If someone wants to "pay" a post, we have a transfer function, and I think some UIs have a tip function too. That's paying. Voting is voting.
Ah. I just wanted to clarify this again because I've seen the phrase "stakeholders pay for rewards" thrown around multiple times.
They (we) pay for rewards collectively, not individually. We vote individually.
They're Gaslighting...
Where did Their "STAKE" come from in the first place?
To be fair, 4 stakeholders isn't the will of Hive..
There are a lot more than 4 stakeholders.
Exactly!
The definition of censorship != "deleted", it actually = suppression.
https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
I'm not sure how after being here all these years you didn't know that.
Rewards are not imposing beliefs. They're a reward. You're entitled to submit a candidate to get rewards, and may get some, but you aren't entitled to them, and not getting them or getting less isn't "imposing" nor "censorship".
If you don't agree with the terminology, fine, but you're still not going to be entitled to an "uncensored" flow of whatever rewards you want.
The concept of a "reward" needs to be reexamined. Rewards aren't given and then taken away in real life that I've heard of, so the naming nomenclature for what is called "reward" is the wrong word to begin with.
An upvote isn't a reward, it's someone assigning someone else system resources(though why that is done at all still doesn't make sense either). Taking away that assignment of resources via downvoting is taking away someone's potential for earning that system resource. Whether or not it is built into the protocol isn't relevant.
The definition of censorship I provided above.
The definition of Curation is to put on display, to discern and create a list/public work that is on display, or to prominently put on display for others to see. Downvoting removes that to a certain %, so it is the opposite of curating and that means downvoting is suppressing something(censorship).
I'm disagreeing with the incorrect use of terminology that is being used across Hive, I am using historical definitions. Hive has censorship built into the protocol and it's called downvoting, to the degree that happens depends on if a post is lessened somewhat, a lot, a little, or zeroed out. For some reason people equate censorship = deleted, and that's just simply not the case.
Nor here either. Until payout, you haven't received the rewards. You can't spend them or transfer them or do anything else with them because you haven't received them yet.
Part of the issue seems to be that the UI displays an ESTIMATE of what you might receive, which is subject to change for various reasons (upvotes, downvotes, exchange rate, size of the reward pool, and possibly others I'm forgetting). But it is just an estimate. Upvotes don't "give" and downvotes don't "take away". The payment is made at the end, after all the votes are in.
Here's the defintion I get from google:
"the action or process of selecting, organizing, and looking after the items in a collection or exhibition"
That's what we're doing with voting. Selecting and organizing the items that will get payouts (looking after isn't applicable). We vote for seven days, during which stakeholders get to collaborate via the voting process to select and organize the pending payouts. Estimated payouts move up and down, and, at the end, the votes are added up, and only THEN is the payout, if any, made.
Sure, but i've never heard of such a thing in real life where a guy who has 1,000 USD in his wallet curates a selection of items/books and puts them on public display somewhere where there's lots of people, and a millionaire walks by and cancels the display. Then the millionaire says "have more money in your wallet if you want to have your display here".
That entire interaction and system is nonsensical.
This is real life. Everything is real life unless you're imagining it or dreaming it.
Is Hive different from many other systems? Yes! Differentiation is important. Is everything about Hive great or perfect? Certainly not. We do the best we can with what we have and also work to improve it.
In any case, you can think of it as somewhat like a business where the shareholders vote on how the business is run (usually indirectly, by hiring a board or manager, but on some occasions directly). Those with a larger share of the business have more votes. That's not completely new, but applying it to a dynamic content rewarding environment is new (or at least was new when Steem invented it)
The money isn't in your wallet then taken away. It's in limbo fluctuating as the market corrects to decide the value. Think if this period as a secondary market. Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows.
I don't agree that one person should be able to wipe out what 100 others users thought was quality, but it's a tricky issue to tackle. We must have a balance to ensure free speech. What's a more balanced system? Certainly not one without downvotes.
Above I've mentioned one improvement to better decentralize Hive. Unfortunately it doesn't address this particular one. I'd say this one should be dealt with one on one between the parties involved.
I bet with the right wording, one side can bring the other to the table. It takes the defeated side to be more humble though. I don't think that affects anyone's free speech, just ego...