Hi @forykw
you got my attention the moment when you said that we are both wrong :)
Thx for sharing your opinion. I still don't know how could STEEM (or any other blockchain) protect us from increasing censorship and I wish to know how can we protect ourselfs here and our content on Steemit from those with large amount of SP (who can censor us whenever and however they please).
Cheers buddy
Piotr
censorship is important, but it's one of those issues people generally don't worry about. Maybe because there are so many degrees of censorship. Some kind of balance is usually arrived at. If you want more freedom of speech take a look at Peepeth.
Dear @ade-greenwise
That's very unique approach. Very different from what I got use to hear. Wow.
Thx for your comment
Piotr
Unfortunately, the definition of words differ around the world, due language, culture and others. Even myself can be miss-interpreted, and we should always try to work on communication, positively.
For me, flagging someone is not really a censorship... what's really happening, is a vote. The vote of someone that does not agree I get rewarded for what I broadcast. Although, what I broadcast keeps on the blockchain... and that only I can control. Same happens to most blockchains, with some of them allowing different flexibility and features on top of this.
Now... if we speak about the front-ends... that's a different story. They can indeed censor things... and that is up to everyone to use or not those front ends. Fight against them or propose new changes... it's all dynamic again. But depends much more on a closed group of people if we compare it to DPOS blockchains for example.
The end result of the above associated problem, is that most people don't yet understand the relationships between a blockchain (like STEEM) and (d)Apps (like a steemit, partiko or eSteem where I am writing the comment for example). As consequence that generates obfuscated opinions that generate noise inside what is or not censorship on blockchain.
So, in resume, for me, what you are worried about "does not apply". I am not saying that there are no other problems around, but that's like a conversation for a LOT more than just 1 reply.
I call that financial censorship. You are targeting someone for them to lose crowdfunding from the niche community that they have built up. When you upvote content you compete with other posts for % of the reward pool, but flagging is actually sniping someone's rewards. Sure, you're willing to take a loss too, but the pro-flaggers are actually trying to get that changed, they want to be rewarded for flagging. Incentivized flagging is the death of Steem from my view.
I agree that we need to discourage bad content and encourage evergreen content. I'm all for that, but not this way. There are better options available.
Hi @hobo.media,
"....but the pro-flaggers are actually trying to get that changed, they want to be rewarded for flagging. Incentivized flagging is the death of Steem from my view."
The pro-flaggers must be rewarded only if they flag bad content, but not if they flag just because they found the content against their thoughts. Let them be whales, all the rules and regulations are same for everyone.
If flagging is done just to take revenge or to make that person's post invisible just because he is against their views (but correct), the one who has done that must be downvoted and flagged by automated bots. At the same time, if a plankton/minnow flags a whale's content for making a nonsensical/highly unacceptable/practically not feasible/false comment, then that minnow/plankton must be highly rewarded for flagging for the right reason.
If we made this possible, then this unnecessary censorship will come to an end. But it is easier said than done.
If this thing become a reality, then I can say for sure that people won't resort to flagging unnecessarily, but only will do it for the RIGHT REASON!
If that be the case, how can the incentivized flagging may become the reason for the death of Steem, please clarify.
I must thank @crypto.piotr for inviting me to comment on this fascinating censorship topic by @julianhorack.
Thanks for your amazing comment @hobo.media
Hi @marvyinnovation thanks for the reply. I'll try to answer your questions to your satisfaction.
Flagging at cost to oneself forces a person to decide how much they care to attack the content. It is designed to be a cost because if there is no cost people can do it whimsically, and if its profitable people are incentivized to find fault with content.
Sure, in an ideal world if its not faulty it won't pass for rewards, but what about when Steem is hugely popular and the flaggers swarm the verification process? You shouldn't think that can't happen, its already an issue on Twitter where they can't keep up with all the abuse reports. This is with no financial incentive, add incentive and you'll see bounty hunters and bots flagging everything they can get away with.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of incentivized editing, verification processes for some things, but Steem is more than one platform. Its the future crowdfunder and stage for free expression, at least, that's the idea some of us hope it will be. We can't ignore that the crowdfunding part is a huge part of what makes Steem what it is.
We also cannot ignore that Steem is suppose to be the solution to the financial censorship happening with Patreon, Youtube and other financial/social platforms. Steem is somehow losing its identity and the culprit is the flag system.
Arguing that its technically not deleted does not fix the issue. Flagging is highly abusable by the rich and powerful or really any influential group. And it can effectively shut down the crowdfunding design of Steem for controversial niche communities.
A lot of people just put their faith in the idea that the overall community will prevent abuse. Where in the world do you ever see that work out? It never works... The whole point of decentralized systems is to create something with fair rules that nobody can gain control of and change into an unfair rule system. So, we have to make Steem incorruptible from the inside out. We all know that mainstream media, governments or corporations could buy out Steemit Inc.'s share any day of the week and if that happens the flagging system is in their discretion. They can ruin anyone's reputation and flag opposing opinions right off the platform. Get rid of flagging or heavily decentralize it and we never have to worry about that happening.
You know what... Fine, a post must be made... and by beard of Zeus, I'm making it!
Hi Hobo
Sometimes I also have this impression.
I wonder if facebook would say that "technically removed content is still in our database and you can access it via our very limited API" then what would people say?
You nailed it. People dream that "decentralization" will change it all. But noone knows "HOW" could that happen.
Cheers, Piotr
Thanks for all your great replies!
I'm glad that you enjoyed this hot topic @marvyinnovation
And big thx for sharing your view
Piotr
That would be incredibly bad. There is a reason you loose reputation when you down vote on StackOverflow:
You should only downvote if the contribution is really bad.
Dear @hobo.media
I fully agree with you, that is nothing but financial censorship.
Thx for sharing your view
Piotr