@gtg, I think you're missing @crypto.piotr's point.... that is, IF the Steemit platform/UI received enough activity and drew enough attention to STEEM, THEN you would start to see REAL censorship.
His point that Steemit is the only "popular" UI/platform right now, and the crap flagging system completely muzzles "unpopular" opinion for anyone not heavily staked (and usually drives them from the platform (and therefore, the token/blockchain))... you can basically say that IS "de facto" censorship.
I'm not saying you're "technically" wrong, from your angle, but you seem to be arguing semantics rather than addressing @crypto.piotr's relevant points (despites terms and definitions), namely, that Steemit (and Steem) are not facilitating wide dissemmination of free expression to the degree we'd like (AND, that it will possibly only get worse if the "powers that be" decide to take interest).
So we disagree about what exactly censorship means, because to me, it's when you can't express your thoughts in a way that others can know it.
Maybe flagging makes it a bit harder for uneducated users to access them, but over time users will find ways (discovering new front-ends, etc).
Freedom, including freedom of speech is of a great value.
The Steem blockchain is a tool able to help you to achieve that.
But freedom is not a free lunch.
It is not served on a plate.
I hate to disagree with you bro, but I feel I should. A lot of the witnesses believe in flagging, which I think is a contradiction to the concept of Steem. @themarkymark even expressed frustration with @fulltimegeek intent of censoring Mark. When challenged by a commenter that it was not censorship Mark agreed, but it did not seem real, but a politically correct answer. Mark was frustrated with what was happening, and it was effectively shutting down his ability to communicate with his readership.
We need to have a deep conversation on censorship. I will gladly do a @pennsif podcast conversation with any or all the witnesses you want about this. Let's take this to public debate for the community to decide. I really think we need to hash this out, not in comments, but in a real, friendly and substantial way.
There is such a thing as financial censorship. People in crypto are talking about this a lot now. Patreon, Youtube, Paypal, Stride, iTunes and likely many other financial avenues for content producers are effectively censoring by means of the purse strings. We need to recognize this as censorship, and we need to recognize that null and voiding other upvotes on content is censorship as well. Its not just censorship of the content but also of the individuals that believe in that content and try to support and reward it with their upvotes.
Flagging, I argue, is also unnecessary in the sense that everyone has voting ability according to their investment in the network and when they vote for something, they are in essence already voting against something else for a larger share of the rewards. But flagging allows for precise attacks, we know they are attacks too, this is why the pro-flaggers want anonymity, because they fear retaliation. I strongly do not believe in that kinds of thinking, at least fulltimegeek does what he does in the open.
I believe there are better ways to encourage quality content on Steem and I'd be happy to discuss those ideas in more detail. Perhaps I need to make a serious post on the subject.
So far, you make the most legit clarity about this topic I can see. I think it's a good idea to have healthy debate about the topic. 3rd density polarities create friction form, form gets stronger, other forms want to control and dominate, human need for control outweighs point of healthy ecosystem; fall of fiat currencies are inevitable... they twist and turn and fall, then there shall be another form that takes power.. form of STEEMIT... lol ( I think it was Tone Vays or one of the big trader guys that said all it would take is one billionaire to throw enough money into crypto markets to collapse or control the entire ecosystem, and it appears of late that Goldman Sachs is doing just this, keeping it all at some bear market jail? I personally have no idea. as I've got gardening to do, and wish only to blog with viable inspiring Stemmians! )
I agree with you @kimmysomelove42
It's a pleasure to read @hobo.media comments. So much wisedom in them.
Cheers
Piotr
It is more trolling than censorship. The messages are still available, just most people would never see them.
I'm not able to share your view, but I appreciate your response. I like your posts by the way.
Take a look at new for 60 seconds. Then imagine what would happen if no one was afraid of being flagged and could post anything that wanted taking from the reward pool we all share.
Honestly, I really don't believe I've ever been flagged. If I have, I don't remember when it happened. My concern is with its power to be manipulated. So, while I realize the pro-flagging mentality is going to be the winning side of history, at the very least, I think it needs adjustment.
I realize that some filtering is good, but I would prefer a decentralized style of flagging. For example, let's say a flag was pending and resulted in a random selection of 1000 or more steemians being invited to either upvote or downvote the content and if the majority upvoted the pending flag is rejected but if the majority downvoted the flag goes through and all the downvotes are counted against the rewards.
If we did it this way, nobody can just go on a flagging frenzy because they can afford it and like to feel good about themselves. They would have to have enough random people agree. I have an issue with the whimsical power that is available to the individual or even a biased group. There are many biases and the content on Steem should not be controlled by one narrative.
Everyone is happy with checkless upvotes. You said yourself, you want decentralized. Post (and comment) rewards are decided by the community. This goes in both directions. Upvotes are abused far more often than downvotes.
This is coming from someone who has 11,000+ downvotes in the last 30 days and has to pay to keep my comments visible due to malicious flagging. I am likely the most flagged person on the platform in the last 3 months. All malicious.
Yet here I stand telling you that if flags were removed this place would die.
In the rare case, flags are abused, the community can step in and correct it. You said yourself you don't even think you have ever been flagged so it is obviously not a rampant epidemic. I can assure you abusive upvoting (upvotes on plagiarism, spam, fraud) is.
Without flags, this place would be a shit hole overnight.
Look at what @fulltimegeek is doing. He can get away with it because Steem Cleaners isn't technically prepared for this sort of thing (going against 100 bots) and @fulltimegeek is large enough he can bully people around. The moment flags are gone, 90% of the userbase that are spammers will have a field day. Even legitimate users will have a difficult time avoiding the easy way out of just posting 10 nonsense post/comments and upvoting them and moving on with their day.
I respect that you disagree, I just do not see a future for Steem without flags. Not as a content platform with a shared reward pool.
Mad flaggers irrationally on the loose rampaging our page are the chaos factor it seems. What does game theory say about it I wonder?
Do we let this carry on or do we have a captain on board to make executive decisions? You prefer the democratic vote, which is a good idea if you can find the people with the time to invest in curating that department.
Good insights brother. We need to openly discuss the topic of flagging and censorship on the blockchain to find a healthy middle way.
Thanks!
Dear @gtg
I really wonder how educated and disconnected from regular users you must be if you have this approach. I can only envy your knowledge and resources.
But please look around you. Do you think that it matters that some data would be "present" on STEEM blockchain if it would not be accessable by most used interfaces?
Let's face reality, not focus on technical aspects of "censorship".
yours
Piotr