This is the same topic that I highlighted extensively years ago when I was the target of the deliberate downvoting to zero (and I still am if I take the time a lot of the time if I make posts on Hive) - in general, I tend to reach the top of trending regularly and have also been either the top or among the top profiles on other uncensored platforms (that don't have rewards pools) - so the argument being used in these comments that the downvoting applies only to posts that are of no value is provably false in many cases.
Hive and Steem before it distribute rewards based on subjective valuation of stakeholders and they are not all going to agree - this is a given. However, it is clear from the comments here and others going back years, that several of the larger stakeholders have designated 'certain accounts' as 'being of no value', regardless of how many people disagree, speak out or take action to try to counter the decision. It is quite obvious to many of us that these 'accounts of no value' that regularly get upvoted to a high degree tend to share a common theme - they are politically oriented and often exposing information that gets censored elsewhere (regardless of how accurate the information is). An IQ of about 80 should be all that's needed to understand that this looks and feels like attempts at deliberate censorship, within the confines of what the rules on Hive allow - whether it is or is not. As many have repeatedly pointed out (often before leaving Hive forever), this is just a mirror of the behaviour of FB/Twitter information control teams and relegates Hive to a failure when it comes to offering a true improvement over Web 2.0 in terms of freedom of information and equality of treatment (read: respect for the users).
It's ironic to read @acidyo talking about how maybe we need 'a list of these posts' to try to counter the problems, since it was him and only him who publicly derided the website I coded to provide exactly this information during the last period that he and others were nuking my account and contributing to the problem here. I am glad to read he is siding with the community at this time.
For reference, you can always view the downvoting behaviour on Hive in the Untrending Report on Hive Alive. I will be updating it soon to not only add new features, but to also output regular posts to the blockchain to expose exactly the kinds of patterns that the OP here is rightly annoyed by.
Ultimately, whether you like it or not, Hive (Steem) was designed by anarcho capitalists and it works best when it is used in alignment with that philosophy. If you think differently then I ask you to open your mind and reassess, because the logic of the system is 100% clear and you will always experience reduced friction when people stop trying to dominate the behaviours of others. The domination usually begins when someone thinks they know best and have the 'duty' to 'protect' the community, without considering that maybe there is something they are missing in their assessment (or alternatively where they know very well what they are doing and are deliberately trying to derail a topic or speaker).
On the topic of @themarkymark downvoting @xeldal and vice versa - I have yet to meet anyone who knows the identity of Xeldal. Xeldal has always upvoted content that, from my perspective, bring important information to light that is censored elsewhere because it can actually serve humanity by removing scumbags from positions of power. The majority of people who produce such content already left Hive due to the constant downvoting and the ones who are left don't bother to write comments for the same reason - as it is really a waste of their time. So the downvoters created a situation where these content creators (some of whom have millions of followers elsewhere) end up stopping engaging here, which the downvoters then use as extra justification for their downvoting.
There's always the possibility that Xeldal is controlled by people like marky and used as justification for downvoting certain accounts/topics to zero.
Hey @ura-soul. One thing at a time dude. Try to stay focused. A lot of people want to see this one resolved.
Not the same as your case at all but not surprised you're trying to weasel yourself in here.
I stand by the downvotes of "influencers with millions of followers elsewhere" who did nothing for years and literally no one here cared about consuming their content neither which was evident. I've commented way too many times to them directly about the issue I saw with them getting away with so much stake for so little gain towards our ecosystem so not going to repeat myself again but even there I mostly just lowered the rewards so the upvoters got the hint. Some retaliated for a while and some took it further because they feel the need to get their way through by any means but compared to these users here now receiving downvotes the community actually cares and wants to support them. Must feel weird when regular users without a big following outside get more love than your fake influencers but that's what makes Hive special, your history and actions on chain matter and will get you further than whatever web2 brand you may have gotten somewhere in one way or another.
Most of my words here were on the topic of downvoting and the conflicts that originate in the process, plus specifically about xeldal and marky - so I don't feel the use of the word 'weasel' is accurate or helpful. I have stopped posting on Hive myself for now, so it is hardly as if I am attempting to gain anything for myself.
Maybe you were not aware of much of the informationwar and deepdive community activity on Steem, but prior to Hive a variety of well known people came to participate and engage from time to time and would do again - plus many others that I know of personally and who have never yet posted on Hive. I am not talking about the accounts you are more familiar with on Hive and have downvoted. The more they feel wrongly targeted, the more they leave - it's the same as in pretty much everyone else's case, except they have typically already experienced very bad abuse by corporations and corrupt governments prior to experiencing this blockchain (so they are less likely to want to engage to solve the problem and more likely to just see the situation as a tired continuation of the norm of web 2).
There was actually a continually active community on Steem and in the related Discords, going 24 hours per day, globally. Now they are not here at all and all that is left is the remnants and a small number of the people you seem to be referring to as the 'million follower accounts'.
These accounts are in no way 'mine' and for the most part I don't personally value them above many other creators. If higher quality creators for these topics came to Hive then I would favour them and upvote them, but these are people who win journalism awards etc. and who tend to move only in the largest networks because it is inefficient for them not to. Personally, I would much rather see organic community here, working and sharing on topics to try to improve the world - that is literally my only interest. However, this simply won't happen against a backdrop of troll downvotes and hard headed decision making that goes against all principles of successful marketing.
I personally hate the idea of the plastic faced 'have a nice day' promotions people out in the world, but there is a reason why they exist - because despite a few assholes getting away with bad things due to the 'friendliness', these cases are massively outweighed by the positive benefits. Translating this to Hive means erring on the side of friendliness instead of defaulting to punishment, control and overpowering.
As I have said many times, it is very well established that the sub and unconscious programming that constitutes much of the 'human condition' includes a bias towards 'the fear of losing out' - whereby people will act and react far more energetically against the thought of losing something than they will to the excitement of gaining something. Far more people will reject Hive through seeing downvoting of the kind that has been common for a while than will be appreciative of the 'benefits' of the downvoting - it's just that there is no scientific way to measure them here, so they are an unknown to all but those people who actively meet and engage with them outside of Hive.
That's fine, but it is your own subjective view. It is rare for any subjective view to be held as a full consensus within a community. When spoken in the context of a stake based community that reaches consensus, your words start to feel a lot like a dictator - whether you realise or not. I am not saying that people who engage the community should not be rewarded more than those who don't - I am simply pointing out that whether someone chooses to align on that idea or not is entirely up to their own free will and it is not in the spirit of community or freedom to try to force them to comply with you.
Additionally, as already highlighted, in many cases the people who don't engage (and who may have large audiences) actually would engage heavily on Hive and promote Hive if they felt that they were being supported and treated fairly. Again, this is a determination that is subjective and it helps to understand that bigger social picture that affects such people - but it is an arena that few seem to understand who are not also part of it.
N.B. This topic is nothing new. I am largely commenting on this topic here because it involves the specific disruption of accounts favoured by a stakeholder who has interest in some of the specific topics I am supportive of. Every action here can create a chain of events that draw in ever more vested stakeholders who have something relevant to add.
I've said it many times, "influencers" of all sizes and content are welcome and often showered in rewards by either random stakeholders or those who value their content and activity outside of Hive specifically. I'm also okay with that, the so called "honeymoon" period, but once months and years go by, the accounts continuously take and certain stakeholders give but there's no visible engagement and consumption occurring on top of no attempts by these influencers to bring in people or share links to attempt to bring in their following here where the platform incentivizes it in so many ways compared to web2 and they've been earning the stake to properly value their followers and engageful comments with upvotes, whether they do it personally or have help doing so. Then what is the point to continuously shower them with rewards, get mad if someone feels that value is better spent elsewhere, literally anywhere and get into these kind of games?
There's many accounts of these examples, at what point are we going to think it's justified they've earned anywhere from 10-100k hp over the years without giving close to anything back except for the few comments complaining how they're getting downvoted eventually? Are we still continuing to shower them with stake and rewards in hopes they'll eventually give a shit? Or are they just so used to adrevenue they think it's the same thing here?
I'm pretty sure I'm not in the wrong here and many in the community have been of the same mindset over the years, it's not like I just decide to randomly downvote posts that may bring value to the ecosystem, that'd be pretty counterproductive to all my other activities on this chain. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not just surrounded by yes-men who just go along and agree with all my opinions and actions and I'm not someone to ignore those who criticize them. I've even made posts asking the opinions of others using some of these accounts as examples and at the same time ignored some of them who do bother to at least be a little active even if they're rewards are still over the top imo.
At some point it just feels like these influencers have been brought in with the promise that they'll get rewards no matter what and the retaliation that occurs seems to ignore any attempts at understanding why some feel the rewards aren't warranted longterm. It's like they completely ignore reason but want to keep treating this platform as proof of stake rather than what it is, want to keep making it look like Steem or Blurt rather than let others weigh in.
I don't even have anything against the genre and I downvote other similar "placeholder" accounts as well from other niche's I don't think bring value to the ecosystem after they've been tried and left be without downvotes for a long time. If you just keep letting it be it'll quickly become a farmfest with more and more value, i.e. part of the rewardspool being wasted.
If these stakeholders believe some other type of content isn't worth it neither then be my guest to downvote and lower the rewards, but don't do it out of retaliation or vendetta, do it in terms of protecting your stake and valuing the inflation that's going out. Very few are using their downvotes like that because there's no incentives of doing so that directly benefit them but some of us are here for the long term and believe it'll help the ecosystem as a whole.
The most ridiculous part is that any of these influencers would do well here if they actually understood and valued the platform and stake they earned, not just take it for granted or think it's the same as the other shitty platforms they'll eventually get banned from. Most don't seem to understand though and are probably not made aware of the differences by whoever onboards them and promises stuff. Naturally, they're going to have a bad time eventually if they treat it just like any other platform or just as a cashcow as many do.