Thanks for raising this. I have no firm position on vaccinations either way; but part of what brings me here is the lure of hearing the best of the available arguments from all sides.
If he's downvoting you with his personal stake, then that's his to do with as he pleases. If he's using the business' stake to censor content; that's a problem.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Absolutely, to silence comments of a particular kind is to say to the entire community "I know better than you and I will decide what you see".. In a sense. :/
He is voting with delegated SP, but I don't know who it's from - maybe @ned ?
http://www.steemreports.com/delegation-info
Ah, that's a helpful site, thanks. So the delegation is from an anonymous account, fair enough!
btw, I was informed that you once worked at Steemit Inc but now work at EOS.. If that's correct, I'm wondering if that frees you up to vote for steem witnesses now? I'm about to go on a vote gathering campaign for my witness and your SP would give me a massive help with that. I understand if you prefer not to, no problem.
So much drama and politics - maybe it's better for us all to just go live in treehouses again. :)
You've just described curation. That's what curation is :)
If Steemit INC is offering an uncensored social media, and then downvoting specific content, that's an issue; but if sneak is using his personal stake to downvote; that's entirely his call.
curation, for me, is about finding good content that you think others will enjoy or find useful. the flipside to that, for me, does not extend to 'hiding content you think others will not like' - which is part of why sneak himself said that it is not a valid use of flagging to flag posts that you just don't like and also part of why there isn't a negative curation reward for 'flagging posts early that many other people also then flag'.
in reality, the issue of the contractual status of sneak as an employee is secondary to his ability to influence decisions and determine the future of the platform.