I have been compared to a bell, quiet and solemn until something strikes me. Once I am hit, it's hard to make me stop talking, so I completely understand and empathize with you about talking too much. 😆
As far as your two cents, each penny was greatly appreciated. I was angry because I felt like I was being wronged, or information I worked hard to gather and write up was equated to me trying to take advantage of people. People who do know me know taking advantage of people is not my character, and I have spent my entire adult life traveling and reporting from some of the most war-torn places in the world. I also do research work for the Armed Conflict Location Event Data project and the Yemen Data Project. All my research and journalism are 100% pro-bono; I simply research the information and offer it to independent news outlets and non-governmental organizations to inform people of the human impact of conflicts.
So, to be told that my content was not original was a kick in the gut, not to mention the implication that I was taking advantage of Hive, something that is dear to me. Colleagues and friends tell me all the time, why do you use that platform? When I talked to one of them recently about this issue, she asked me why you are even dealing with all that just don't post there anymore. Because I love Hive with all my heart, Steem was okay, but our blockchain revolution was the greatest thing I was a part of on the internet since we stopped the "Stop Online Piracy Act" in the US in 2011/2012.
With all that said, I treated GP the same way I felt like I was treated, accused them of being something they are not, and tried to implicate them in some kind of wrongdoing. Emotions can sometimes lead us to close our eyes to our own hypocrisies.
One thing that you said that I still question, and I thank you in advance for hanging in there with my lack of understanding. You say a downvote does not censor a post. My post got downvoted by amd, spaminator steamcleaners, etc, and now has a message to users that says that this content received a low rating from the community (I understand it isn't on all front ends). Just because my post is there and still visible does not mean it isn't being censored, in my opinion. Dissuading users from viewing content because four powerful users downvoted it is not exactly the idea of free information access to users. If the content is deemed malicious or spam, it should have a message warning users about that content. Right now, if a few whale accounts dislike a post, that post is equal to and treated as spam. Downvotes don't prohibit free speech; you're right, but can you confidently say that downvotes do not discredit the information in the post or make a user less likely to engage with that post? What is the difference between dissuading users from engaging with content and censorship?
I am sure I am wrong, so please tell me where I am mistaken.
It is a conundrum because downvotes protect free speech as well, the free speech of the user who is displeased with the content they downvoted, and if used in a natural way by average Hive users, I do not see any issue with downvotes. I remember debating in the comments on Hive a few years back with smooth about downvoting, and smooth stated they were downvoting to even out the reward pool. I understand that form of downvoting way more than I can wrap my mind around what Hive Watchers is doing. After replying to your comment before, I went and voted for the Hive Watchers proposal after researching their mission more, and shortly after that, amd and others downvoted my post. I know they are the power behind Hive Watchers because Hive Watchers has no actual power.
So, how can I support a project that I know is targeting Hive accounts that disagree with them? How can I support anything attached to anyone involved with such totalitarianism? If they are doing it to me, all the stories about this downvoting mafia on Hive are true, and it is not a good look for Hive. At this point, I wholeheartedly support gtg's zero proposal. Downvoting is only an issue when it is abused and used for selfish, myopic reasons, just like any authority. Once they get power, that authority will inevitably abuse that power. Hive is supposed to work on a consensus of votes from the community, yet Hive Watchers' proposal only has 397 votes. Much of the HP in that proposal comes from blue whales like Blocktrades, smooth, hiro-hive, and others.
I don't understand why people on Hive would want to take the form of a publisher because that is whole other list of things that Hive now becomes liable for once you start to police content in any way you are taking the role of a publisher, like facebook or X. You are going to get angry people who feel as if they are being censored, so while I think it is a valiant effort put forth by Hive Watchers to try to quell spam and abuse on Hive. They are way understaffed, unprofessional, and lack objectiveness. The only adjudication offered is a kangaroo court held in a discord channel where you can be banned at any moment. Once you're banned, that is it. There is no further way to contact Hivewatchers. All their accounts lead back to the same discord.
Hive Watchers signed up for a hard job that they get paid to do it, but it is a job they invented and volunteered themselves for. They shouldn't be able to accuse any account of wrongdoing and then block that account from any kind of adjudication because words offended them.
Whether it is censorship or not can be debated ad nauseam. What matters is that to many people, it feels like censorship.