Hmm... I typically only flag for abuse, and though I'm entirely 100% in this opinion, I think flagging in this regard is fine, though it obviously hurts the victim's account confidence and pride.
The flag button does say 'disagreement on rewards*, so he's abiding by the system.
The more I type though, the more complicated the grey areas get. Regarding the philosophy of flags. If you remember our one interaction long ago you'd know I'm highly against your views in general but unlike most I actually enjoy debates counter to my side, so I wouldn't even consider flagging such things.
Sneak can be seen in another post stating clearly on this topic a specific list of criteria in which he personally thinks it is acceptable to flag and he specifically states that personal opinion differences is not one of them. The only one he states that could possibly fit is that he disagrees over rewards because the post contains lies. Since he has failed to even attempt to demonstrate how that is true, we are left to speculate.
Since the system has no enforcement process for ensuring that any guidelines regarding flagging are adhered to, there really isn't a system being applied to flagging in the sense of determining what is good/bad flagging, there are only unenforced and thus entirely voluntary words.
As far as disagreements and truth finding go - I actually aim to have zero belief, opinion and 'views' - looking instead to back up everything (or most) of what I say with replicable evidence. The challenge here is that substantial amounts of the world are convinced that what they think is true 'must' be true but when pushed they haven't actually done the necessary due dilligence research to know either way. Therefore, any minority position can find itself the target of ridicule, regardless of it's accuracy.
Indeed, and I'm sure both of us are guilty of this as much as we hate to admit it and really it's causing some issues for the reputation of this platform movement, with a recent publication from polygon reporting about Dtube in a light that is... less than flattering - https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/7/17087668/steemit-dtube-bitchute-youtube-purge
But I'm hesitant to call it wrong, per se. Correct policing is fundamentally an issue with the philosophy of the site...
Regarding Sneak, yeah I certainly agree that those at the head of STINC need to behave with a certain, impartial manner as you said in your video, i've seen some incredibly childish exchanges on their twitter account (not sure who runs it but hopefully they've since been fired).
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that before. There are some odd lines in there, for sure.
I was under the impression that:
a) Dtube isn't operated by Steemit Inc. and thus it is not their legal responsibility to take down videos that infringe copyright. Steem is alleged to not be controlled by Steemit Inc. so as far as I can see there isn't a direct connection. Videos that are linked from Dtube in Steemit.com aren't embedded.
b) There is no way to remove videos from IPFS or the steem blockchain, so the only way that Steemit inc. could conform to the idea of taking down a video is by Steemit inc specifically blacklisting posts in Steemit.com - which I am not aware they do and which contradicts what Sneak has said about censorship on Steemit.
The claim that Dtube is effectively 'Youtube for conspiracy theorists' may be part of why Sneak is taking the stance here that he is, since the false claim made by the piece on Polygon is not one which he might want to have associated with the platform. If anything the claim lets us know some of the intentions behind the author at polygon (a site I had never heard of before).
From what I have seen, the author of that piece on Polygon is a prime example of what I was pointing to when I said that people are convinced that what they think is true 'Must' be true without doing any due diligence research. The quote about alex jones and david hogg is a good example since Alex Jones did NOT say that David Hogg was a crisis actor - as far as I am aware (having put a few hours into researching it), he merely said he was trained and as I recall that some of the children there are actors - WHICH IS TRUE - and one of them is on IMDB for acting! Since Alex Jones' videos were removed the mainstream media went on a rampage making claims about what he said that then couldn't be checked on youtube. As it turns out alex jones has stated that he is opening multiple court cases against the many agencies involved, which i presume may be for slander or worse.
Conspiracy is a crime that is prosecuted every day in courts - if conspiracy is 'dangerous' to talk about then police should be arrested since that's what they deal in every day. @corbettreport made a wise comment on the doublethink attitude regarding 'conspiracy theory':
According to polygon, @ned has stated that 'hate speech' is removed by flagging, so this completely negates the stance that @sneak takes by claiming that flagging 'isn't censorship'. - you can't have it both ways guys.
I intend to make a full post in response to this link.
He has on many occasions flagged posts based on only disagreement and nothing else.