Who "OWNS" the block chain that Steemit is on? If it's privately-held, we are screwed...BUT...if it's public...
...we have a chance.
Right now, on Steemit, Inc., as in much of the social media blogosphere, conservative/Constitutional/patriotic and Christian views, opinions and statements/articles are under very open censorship campaigns. Here on Steemit, they are taking the form of largely unprovoked, purely-ideological, pre-programmed/automated, downvoting attack campaigns by accounts that self-identify as socialist, and by a few of their less-openly-socialist associates.
The only way for minnows who espouse views that trigger socialists to survive here on Steemit (and the only way for Steemit to SURVIVE as anything other than a socialist echo chamber) is for us, as a community, to assert what I believe is our LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ownership of the block chain to change the current programmed downvoting "wink & nod" by the current resident whales and witnesses groups.
If the blockchain is private, we are screwed, and no conservatives (the vast majority of Americans, for sure) would ever be crazy enough to risk investing on this platform. That is because, no matter how hard the majority of active users might try to enact change, the "owners" (as in those who "incorporated" NOT just Steemit, Inc., but THE BLOCKCHAIN ITSELF) will always have the final say.
If, on the other hand, the blockchain is public...like a street corner, or a public gazebo, etc...no one has the right to silence you on it, or to effectively "steal" your current unclaimed earnings by eliminating (through downvoting) the ability of your posts to earn anything. You can not walk up to someone on a public venue and put your hand over their mouth because you disagree with them. But that is what SOCIALISTS are now effectively doing, here, and everywhere.
If the block chain is truly "public" we may need to address the weighting of SP as the determining factor in voting power, drastically.... I am suggesting that the more SP you own, the less voting (per unit) that SP gives you. THAT IS DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLICAN AND AMERICAN.
It is what a publicly-owned block chain must adopt or else we are on suicide watch as a community, and Steemit, Inc. will be nothing but a socialist echo chamber within a few more months.
That's how I see it. Feel free to comment.
ALSO, if you have any legal document proving ownership of the block chain, PLEASE PROVIDE THEM ASAP.
Thanks all!
That could only be addressed by the powers that be, and i see no incentive for them to change their political ideology...
I think there are (possibly ) other ways to ot address the problem in the terms you say.... but to force the change...
I'm not guaranteeing anything, but my head is hurting thinking about it..
We can't play (and expect to win) by the rules of a rigged game, and as such have to carve out our own new rules...(hence the hurting head..)
The community WILL DIE unless the malicious, purely ideologically-driven SJW downvoting programs are addressed. I don't see conservatives here acting that way.
The community will either adapt or die.
Socialists here are slaying their own golden goose, whether they realize it or not.
"Socialists here are slaying their own golden goose, whether they realize it or not."
Socialists excel rather well at that wherever they have sway.
Indeed.
'Murican "free" marketeers advocating "public" ownership to predominate in certain economic sectors. It seems quite socialist in policy. In order to combat socialism, we must adopt socialism? At least be honest with yourself; you just want your faction to ascend using the state apparatus, which you denigrate on a regular basis, to do the dirty work for you.
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
FreezePeach
Howdy sir mepatriot! I agree, it should be a free and open forum with no ability to harm others just because you disagree with them. Otherwise I think the growth is severely limited in the future. If downvoting was done away with and true freedom of speech was allowed I think the growth would be amazing.
I wouldn't say we need to "do away with it," just require people to check a box as to why, with one for "politics/ideology," and if they click that one, the downvote doesn't go through. Then, if they abuse that, the person offended could appeal.
good idea.
Thanks, Jon. Something needs to change, or the site can't endure.
I got flagged to oblivion on few posts this last few days - and they were just asking questions about steemit and it's organization/big players.... oh, and one about ways we can counter ideological flaggers! - yes, really...
a sad state of affairs..
Okay.
First, permit me a moment of advocatus diabolii here.
Your opening argument is "to prevent this site from being taken over by Socialists, we need to make sure this asset (steemit) is collectively owned by all participants and not simply privately owned by its founders."
...Mon ami, I'd like you to read that sentence several times, slowly, and carefully.
Now with that having been said, you have a lot of very real and accurate points. On one hand, what you have pointed out about massive downvote attacks as a form of censorship is 100% true, but it's also not news. Many (myself included) took one look at Steemit when it first came out and said "it calls itself uncensorable, but the minute enough people of like mindset get together and decide to silence all dissent, the "hide post" mechanism becomes the easiest way in history to do that." The majority gets away with saying "it's not censorship" by claiming it is "the People" and not some central authority who causes any post they deem objectionable to be hidden, and expects us to be stupid enough to fall for that. In other words, exactly the phenomenon you are describing was the rather predictable outcome of the experiment known as Steemit, and nought remains but to use it for what little it's still worth, while it's still worth it.
Further, as long as an oligarchy of witnesses hold unchecked, irrevocable power to alter the environment in any way they collectively see fit then the asset was never truly "decentralized," and as long as the ability to prevent content from being seen exists, then whoever has that power (which, in the case of Steemit, is whoever can stir up enough people to join their downvoting campaigns) holds censorship power.
If Steemit truly wanted to put their money where their mouth is regarding the "free and open" aspect, then the next hardform would remove the ability for content to be hidden based on its rating. Frankly, given that every recent hardfork has been about creating a "he who has the most money (even if STEEM isn't real money) has unchecked power," I find that unlikely.
We have reached a day and age where the only way to guarantee you are heard is to be in the majority, because if the views you espouse are not popular, anyone who wants can label you a [bigot/racist/luddite/whatever-label-is-fashionable-that-week] and call for their hivemates to join in an insectile swarm against you, and that is precisely what appears to be happening en masse. That is the sadly unavoidable Achilles' Heel of Democracy: it takes on the characteristics of its participants. In an age of enlightenment, a Democratic society was enlightened. In an age of determination to achieve a goal (such as the World Wars), Democratic societies became unstoppable machines. In an age where paranoia and and whining stupidity wherein anyone who disagrees with me/you/him/her/whoever is [insert label here], Democratic societies (such as a decentralized blockchain-based information community) become echo-chambers where whoever is in the majority is unquestionably "right" and whoever disagrees is unquestionably [whatever label they want to apply]."
That's why we need to constantly remind the talking heads (and their echoers) that we NEVER WERE, ARE NOT, and DON'T EVER WANT TO BE a democracy.
No. I don't want lawyers to think that they can legalese this place. It's not your money until payout. People can still read what you write so it's not full-blown censorship.
I will continue doing what I can to counteract all unjust flags against you.
Yea...I've since coalesced, instead, around the idea of hardforking in the "check reason box" step, just prior to downvoting (also with a "check all boxes with street signs" authentication) to stop auto down votes, and malicious ideological manual downvotes. Bots wouldn't be able to downvote, and real people would have their downvotes for purely ideological differences (checked box ) thrown out.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR ALL YOU DO!!!!
Ahhhh ... like a proof-of-brain to flag somone? Hahaha ... I kinda like that idea ... that way bots can't don't it ...
Once I get my basic Android proof-of-brain game accomplished I may try to implement something like that. It'll be way later this year probably tho.
COOL!!!
Right...limiting massive malicious downvoting campaigns, where nobody even looks at what they're voting on, has to stop.
If we don't limit such programs, no decent and intelligent person will ever invest here again. Why should they, if all of their investment could be wasted on a platform where it would be possible, under the current system, that nobody will ever even see what they write?
It'll obviously just be for novelty tho because you can't hardcode proof-of-brain into a flag.