To me I am pretty clear that there is a wealth of abusive downvoting happening regularly.
Show us some examples, I'd gladly counter and have done so in the past when I deem them over the top/abusive (even from the same accounts who've downvoted you in the past) the difference of those authors were that they didn't throw a hissy fit, try to shit on the platform that's rewarded them for years and attempt to create gray lines of what censorship means when you well know there's people literally being censorshipped on #web2 and whole nations.
it was used as a phoney excuse to shut down discussion of serious scientific matters by people who's agenda seems extremely shady.
How do you shut down discussion when most downvotes happen 2-5 days late and more often than not have close to no engagements up til then? Maybe this isn't specifically you as you've been around the ecosystem and active in the community/other parts of Hive but most of the people you/resonator support/supported were literal ghost accounts. Even some of my posts that have hundreds of comments stop receiving any comments after a few days.
It's really hard to take you seriously when your arguments are this weak.
It's 6:30 am here and I have been up all night in this conversation - I will come back to that when I can - maybe tomorrow.
I am not aware of a single person who had their account totally nuked after having invested years into the network who didn't get angry. You are comparing apples and oranges.
We have been over this many times. Censorship clearly includes any attempt to reduce the reach of a message, which downvoting does and which is part of the entire purpose and function of downvoting. Any other interpretation is denying something that is key. Yes, Web 2 is worse - but then at least they are up front about being biased.
I made a post at the time showing that my posts at that time had been generating a factor of multiple times more comments than all of the top posts at that time. Yet I was told no-one was interested in them. Some posts didn't get many comments - as do almost all of the posts on Hive. Any heavy downvoting restricts reach and potential conversation. Just the downvoting in and of itself just winds people up and they leave the entire site. I guess if you don't know people who are interested in 'truth' then you won't have noticed or felt similar.
I have no idea who you are talking about here. Every post was manually curated and deliberately picked for being a verifiably real person. Marky is currently downvoting everything by Jeff Berwick (The person who Dan and Ned rewarded with thousands of dollars for one post and who is the reason why I and many people ever even heard about Steem). Jeff has built an entire TV site powered by Hive, but apparently that's not good enough.. Ok then. I don't agree with everything he says but he probably has more resources and spark of life than 99% of people anyone here will ever meet and his objectives are totally aligned with Hive's .. But still. not good enough because.. reasons..
https://peakd.com/@dbroze
literal farming with close to 0 engagement and no views on @threespeak, reputation higher than most, never so much as mentions Hive/3speak on Twitter or his website anywhere, last comments were about downvotes and you just give stake away cause why not and then cry about someone trying to mitigate/stop it. It's actually quite disgusting to say the least. I know that if any other influencer tried to pull the same thing he wouldn't get the same rewards but you guys consistently go out of your way to feed him even though he's shown nothing to deserve them let alone for this long.
You said that 'most of the people' supported were ghost accounts. This is patently untrue - in addition to what I have written below about Derrick Broze, looking through the stats for the outvotes, I can only see pressfortruth and tdvtv/dollarigilante as possibly fitting into the same category. These are independent content creators with larger audiences who probably lack the time to go through and comment on every social media channel they post to. It's like saying 'I can't believe you give money to big corporations, they don't ever bother to come and talk to you'.. Well that's true and there's an argument to never using big corporations that makes sense sometimes, but at the same time few people are even able to stop using all big corporations, because they provide value that people want. All of those content creators are hard working and actually produce the kind of content that provides masses of value and far higher than the majority of content creators on Hive. I don't agree with everything they say, but it seems that you want me to vote on people I don't really value just because they come and post a few words as comment on Hive. You realise that this can be done by AI right? That there is no actual way to know if people posting comments are even people? But setting that aside also, you are not only making the judgement that people are of more value if they have more time on their hands to come here and comment (which might actually only be evidence that they don't have much to add at all and therefore have a lot of time) and also that all other stakeholders should agree with you and that you are right. That is VERY demanding and pushy, but you don't even seem to recognise it. Even Aggroed stepped in to point this out on Twitter to you a while ago in his own way.
You are basically saying 'I know better than you about how you should use your stake' and I'm going to get involved and try to change you because you are wrong. That feels shit and you shouldn't be surprised that some people stand up to you.
Out of interest, is there a rule that says that content has to have comments under it to be in order for it to be held in esteem and voted on? I don't recall ever seeing that. My ultimate interpretation of who to vote on really comes down to 'do you subjectively value the content?' - that's how the system was designed and intended to be used all along, as far as I understand it. The relationship is between content creator and voter - one person holds stake and the other receives inflation based on the appreciation of the stakeholder.
I personally find it disgusting that others have come along and tried to police this relationship - but maybe I have missed something.
In the case of Derrick Broze he is active constantly, engaging the world at large, getting in the face of war criminals and he is currently building a physical community. This is someone that any sane person would be applauding and happy to support - given that he fully knows about Hive and may engage/promote in future to the exact target demographic. As I have already said, which you didn't comment on once I highlighted the reality of the origins of Steem (Which I could backup with video evidence if needed) - Steem and Hive are anarcho capitalist technology by design - so it feels shit to have people coming along and inserting themselves as content bosses.. Especially when difficult points are ignored/denied and not responded to - as has happened in this thread a lot and as has always happened here. E.g. The fundamental philosophical questions about anarchy on Hive... And similar with Marky here. Finding resolutions that feel good to everyone require not skipping over any details.
I can't speak to Derrick Broze's views on 3speak but I just had a conversation with @starkerz about the view counts on 3speak possibly being broken, as one of my recent videos on 3speak that I linked on Twitter has received nearly 9000s views on Twitter in recent days, with hundreds of likes and over 20 retweets, yet it has only 26 views in 3speak - which definitely doesn't add up. This is consistent with my experience on 3speak in general, I am pretty clear the stat tracking is not working as intended.
When I upvote someone it's because I value their work/content and I want other people to have a chance to see it in their feed - that's it, it generally has little to do with stake in my mind, actually.
You're the one ignoring my main points and it's getting annoying. I've checked on his socials and hive account so often it's baffling it still gets rewarded with stake. He literally just shows up to complain about downvotes and the rare few replies per year to whoever dumbass gets tricked onto consuming the content while it's trending daily. We can't keep rewarding influencers in the hopes that they at some point in the future may promote hive after years of failing to do so yet collecting, dumping and getting mad about slight downvotes. Even if 3speak viewcount isn't working right now it has been working in the past as they've been autovoting content based on views and guess what, literal nobodies like me and others on Hive have been getting more views than him so yes I consider this to be quite the "ghost account" you seem to want to know the definition of and fiddle around with that.
It's the same with most of these influencers, all talk and no substance, web2 is a cesspool of fake activity that can easily and very cheaply be bought. I bet the main reason they never share any hive links is cause they know it won't get them anything, and why would most of them even care when they have no stake to benefit from it or curate their fanbase.
They can see it in their feed even if it's downvote to 0 dummy.
There is no point in continuing here if you aren't going to accept the possibility that you are doing this. I already pointed to the example of the philosophy behind hive's design being anarchist, which you said was inaccurate and which I then responded to and can easily back up with evidence. You then just never commented again. This kind of thing really annoys me (not just with you but with anyone) when the topic is important, because it always results in a deadlock and complete waste of time - either that or one party bulldozes the other and ill feelings arise. Mature, meaningful and respectful conversation depends on paying attention to what is said and responding.
I am not ignoring your points, I understand what you are saying and I am doing what I can to point out in response that not everyone values content creators in the same way that you do - just because you have criteria doesn't mean that others will share it, nor should they. Again, this is the basis of voluntarism, no-one tells others how to think and make free will choices - but you insist on doing so. I get it, you don't agree with equality and the freedom to choose to the same degree that I do - it would be easier if the principles involved were clear and our positions in relation to them, because the rest is just details.
You're literally nitpicking about some random low hanging fruit like "what steem was created for", what you gonna send me to its whitepaper after almost 7 years as proof? Who gives a shit what ned the ninjamining scammer and gullible dan wanted and pushed early on and the "amazing" people influencers like dollarvigilante brought here, they've returned close to no fucking value to the platform. If they had, posts about these subjects would be flooded with engagement, new users coming in daily and it rightfully taking a big part of the reward pool. I'd be a fucking moron to try and counter that if that was the case, but alas it's not, so you must be the moron.
Gotta give credit to dtv that at least he's trying this time around, have noticed some few accounts being created for free through ocdb reference to him, although most just inactive.
If there aren't enough posts of enough users in your curation scope who may in one way or another bring some value to Hive or retain some attention then curate something outside of that scope or don't curate at all, or stop complaining over a adjustive downvotes if you want to keep upvoting people you think bring value to the ecosystem but someone else doesn't. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way, if you want I can bring this up in a poll to see what the rest of the community thinks about it.
If these influencers don't want downvotes then prove to us that your content is sought after ON hive, not whatever is happening outside of it. They've had years and probably months of trending time to prove that people here consume the content yet have miserably failed. Am I lying about that? If you don't agree with my downvotes then upvote them higher and take the curation penalty to continue rewarding these influencers you put your hopes in and I'll back off once they show signs of wanting to bring some value to the ecosystem rather than just taking from it, until then literally any regular user is just as valuable if not more.
If you think that the underlying philosophy behind the entire system that you use every day is irrelevant, then we are approaching the situation from such a different view that there probably is no point talking here.
It's clear that layer 1 Hive's community at present has been shaped such that it is not suited to the mindset or intentions that created it originally - as occurs with most great inventions - they are watered down and exploited over time. I may return once layer 2 is more evolved.
So casting a 20% downvote of total post rewards at day 5-6 reduces the reach of the message, yep. Keep ignoring obvious facts and I'll continue to not read the rest of your message and your future replies as you're still the same person who was self-voting and farming post rewards back then.
It's mostly posts like these of you going in circles and trying your hardest to prove downvoters wrong and tricking some people in discord's to come to your aid that get you engagement, same with all other influencers your accounts support I've downvoted slightly who show up after a month or two not commenting acting like I've fucked their daughters and never called back.
You literally just downvoted a post I made here that is 2 days old, so you invalidated the basis of your own claim here. Even downvoting towards the end of the payout period has some effect on post reach and visibility. If the intention is to only reduce payout and not effect post reach and the downvote happens as close to 7 days as possible, there is still a form of censorship which will effect different people to different degrees. This is because one of the points of paying out money for posts (in my mind and in logically grounded reality) is that the money can then be used by content creators to create content, so the reduction in payout limits their capacity to do that and therefore their reach - at least in contrast to other people. There is no possible way around this and it just seems disingenuous that you are still trying. I don't really think you could keep making this point over and over again over months without actually thinking you are right, but to plenty of others it seems illogical and off.
Yes that was based on you reposting which you didn't disagree to be doing.
It's adjustment of rewards and literally the main idea behind the downvote mana pool. Fuck off at this point, you're just acting all ignorant for the sake of it and wasting everyone's time. The days of blindly rewarding anarcho bullshit are over, get over it.