Centralized powers like to control the information. That's why my work on consciousness and morality that got "too high" visibility due to rewards making it go trending had flagging applied because it's "not the type of content that will help steemit attract, retain or grow a user base". Many whales view flagging as a way to prevent content they don't like from gaining more visibility and "censor" it that way, to limit the popularity and visibility in part. But that's individual abuses due to their concentration of power. It's not a "perfect" system that has the law/code to make things work right, but is indeed more censor resistant than the rest ;)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
While flagging is, imho, shown to be abusive, particularly as your experience demonstrates, and counterproductive to Steemit becoming more widely adopted by people, that, for example, agree with those posts you made that were so flagged, at least the posts themselves weren't simply deleted.
Your words were still communicated, although you clearly were demotivated from speaking. Such speech as you did undertake remains available on the blockchain, and, afaik, will remain so regardless of any intent to censor you.
You are clearly correct that Steemit is the least censorable medium presently available, afaik. It is fortunate that those that would censor you aren't able to assume the power inherent in systems amenable to centralization.
Not just flagging, but the incentive for votes may cause people to self sensor or produce popular content. Which is not so bad except if there were no whales with alternative views