That's exactly the point of this whole place, there are no guardian roles at all. Anyone who wants can copy this entire place with almost no technical knowledge, they can figure out how to distribute the initial stake and start their own version, and tweak it how they want, and if they want, they can only clone the condenser (the front end) as that too is open source and requires close to no tech knowhow, and they can change whatever they want, if they want to remove the option to make content that's rated below a certain threshold initially substituted by a button that once clicked reveals the original content, then they can, and people have done that already. They have cloned the chain and removed the option from the base layer (chain) to downvote, like whaleshares.io, then there are other places that, like busy and partiko, have a completely different front end that doesn't hide things that have negative payouts, and they did it the "hard" way, by making an entirely new frontend, it would be almost trivial to do it the easy way and clone the open source condenser.
I asked you those questions to discuss the merits behind serving certain content to the audience with a warning/caution that it may not be "good", because I think that such a feature is essential to the well being of the platform, it provides a very simple to use mechanism to caution the audience, and even if it is abused, it absolutely does not make it censorship, ever, since no information is unavailable or edited in any way. The whole "who guards the guardians" seemingly tries to avoid that conversation on the false pretext that there are such roles or such roles for the roles (guarding the guardians). Think about it, does the "rated/marked as hidden" feature not offer an overall benefit to the community, and do the downvotes as well not work to offer a check for unabridged abuse, not necessarily things like spam or bad/disturbing /deceitful / harmful content, but behaviors like exclusive self voting which would threaten the health of the overall community and would begin by as a prisoners dilemma, whereby more and more people race to vote only for themselves as there is reprocrisuon for doing so and anyone who is acting otherwise would mean not maximizing/capitulating on a guaranteed steem of profits.. I'm sure these aren't the first time you've stumbled over, these things are explained on a weekly basis it seems, just moments before writing this I ridiculed a retarded individual for trying to make a case that rated as hidden is censorship. People take censorship to mean anything and everything that isn't received positively it seems, they probably have never been actually censored or have witnessed actual censorship, it appears that people will whine, exactly like you have, asserting nil explanation or substance, nonsense like censorship, on a censorship proof platform for eternity. Even if things aren't rated as hidden, @hobo.media will certainly try to say it's demonization and therefore censorship, as if people are entitled to positive votes but not negative ones and rewards are guaranteed as if this isn't a game, but a crowdsourcing milking scheme.
Look away everyone, nothing to see here. This is not censorship. ;)
Dude, the flag was a joke... I thought that was obvious. Wow, I must have really pissed you off in that old conversation for you to rant so much at me.
And no, I did not read that wall of text, I glanced a bit, but not enough to know everything you said.
Just screwing with you @baah, no true hard feelings intended. :)
Dude, you are trying to bring back an old conversation that I ended because it was exhausting continuing the conversation. We disagree, let's just agree to disagree. I had given you plenty of my time back then and typed out plenty of responses to you. But I do stand by everything I said back then, it was right then and it is right today. You disagree with me, and that's fine.
But I warn you, businesses as brought up the downvote feature as one issue they have with this platform. Many publishers prefer places like Minds.com over Steem because this place is overly investor-centric for a social site. And investors have too much power over the place, able to devalue what they want and punish whoever they want. It has been recognized by many Steemians that whales have the power to make this place pointless to a user. If all your content is going to be shaded and condensed and your images removed, and you're not going to be able to monetize your content, you will not value coming to Steem and posting up content. Steem is its reward system and visibility, and when you reduce to completely eliminate those features, Steem because useless to you.
Let me show you:
I found this quite comical, this guy honusurf believes in utilizing his 20,000 SP to punish people that simply communicate on Steem with someone honusurf dislikes. This shows the evils that exist with downvotes. However, this person's experience on Steem is ironically pointless, and the guy's 20,000 SP is not doing him/her much good because an even more powerful tyrant dislikes honusurf: iflagtrash and abusereports.
This guy's content production days seem to be numbered. Why be on Steem when you could be on a more popular site that also doesn't reward you for content? The value of Steem's reward system is being taken away from honusurf by iflagtrash and abusereports.
Let's look at who else iflagtrash and abuse reports are censoring:
Look at all the people that upvoted that guy's post. The majority of the people liked the content, but Steem's design did not care about what the majority thought. Steem served the wealthy three that disliked it and reduced the value of all the other voters to 0. I can't imagine I would ever want a system like that to grow to the popularity level of Youtube or Twitter, let alone a combination of all the social medias and blogs as is Steem's objective.
I don't like Honusurf, he/she seems like a real jerk. But I still don't believe in people having the subjective power to render their access to Steem's key features pointless.
Well, I'll give you this. It was fun hitting the downvote button on this comment...
Any conversation with you cannot reasonably be labeled "pertinent" in my opinion. The topic of flagging vs. not flagging is important to me, and I am happy to have that conversation with someone that seems reasonable and open-minded. You are not someone I believe has those qualities.
this post was hidden due to low ratings
this post was hidden due to low ratings (not by me)
which further proves my point that Steemit is NOT resistent to censorship.
In fact I'd suggest that the existence of the Flagging mechanism is evidence that Steemit has built in censorship.