Do you understand that if the court wants to regulate Steem for example it would have to FORCE 19 witnesses that run the network to act in a certain way? Do you realize that those people would only be replaced the moment they act against the community by the first 19 most popular ones that the court hasn't ordered yet to do that, and if they order those other 19, another will step up, and ultimately they cannot force people who are anonymous and don't know where they are, and it takes only one to stop them from doing whatever they order. In other words, do you understand that when you said that "there's nobody untouchable" you painted yourself into a corner and made yourself look like an idiot, as clearly anonymity itself has made satoshi untouchable and there are plenty of instances where like a decentralized exchange, no regulations could happen, regardless of what the court orders, exactly like torrents.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Do you also understand that 19 witnesses get together with those who structure the programs to find ways to come into compliance so they don't have to go to jail, spend all their money defending themselves...and that would only be if the feds didn't freeze their assets. I mean really man makes some sense, do you think that dozens upon dozens of people want to disrupt their lives, lose their fortunes, just so some guy can abuse a flagging system in a way that was not intended? Really? Honestly? I know 19 witnesses who'd rather give up being a witness and call it good.
You were the one who brought the witnesses into this. I wasn't even thinking about them, why on earth would someone want to sue the witnesses?....it's the owners that would get sued. I don't know what country you come from but here in the US people get protected from abuse, and your blockchain can abuse all they want but you know what?...those who develop and allow the abuse can be sued for loses of those abuses if regulatory value is instilled. Once again, Steemit is a privately held company, as a privately held company the owners can be held liable for abuse.
STEEM is not decentralized. From the beginning it was and still remains highly centralized. The launch of the STEEM network was heavily rigged to ensure that the developer and his ‘friends’ had control over majority of supply. Furthermore, this has major implications for the Steemit platform.
The top 247 accounts on Steemit (most of which are probably owned by the developer and his ‘friends’ through duplicate accounts) own ~87.50% of total stake, without including the main steemit account which is also controlled by the dev. Although any user can vote for content, the influence of your vote corresponds to the amount of STEEM you convert on your account. This means the typical user’s vote is almost meaningless unless they manage to acquire a high stake in total supply.
https://decentralize.today/the-ugly-truth-behind-steemit-1a525f5e156
Now you are going off on a censorship rant. Listen to you. Okay Steemit was built that thwart not just censorship from government but from censorship period. Meaning if someone was using the flagging system to censor someone into oblivion a person could file in court that the platform was built to avoid censorship, therefore the flag being used to silence someone is in violation of the rules, the rules have to apply overall, the companies failure to apply the rules overall opens them up to liability from the affected filer. If you are flagging someone to silence them that is abuse of the flagging system.
https://decentralize.today/the-ugly-truth-behind-steemit-1a525f5e156
Censorship comes in many forms, intimidation is one of them. The material may stay on a page but the damage is done through ruining people's reputations and flagging their accounts to a loss.