You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: STEEMIT.INC banned @thedarkoverlord from STEEMIT // Good call or did @NED just make another whoopsy?
That is a bad move in my opinion. I don't like what the "Dark Overlord" is doing, as I'm not a fan of extortion. It's not Wikileaks. If they're willing to do this kind of thing, why would I trust anything they say or produce? BUT I don't think censorship is the answer. People should be free to look at what the "Dark Overlord" group is doing and speak out against it if they disagree with it. This action sends out the message that Steemit is not a place for free speech.
I agree to an extent. The problem is that these hackers are criminals. When do you draw the line and say, its ok to ban?
To me this seems like a no win scenario for Steemit.inc. If they dont ban, they are harboring criminals (as @socky said above, that could hurt our chances with Coinbase). If they do ban, they are censoring.
Both is true. And both has financial consequences. Im middle ground on this. Either choice for me is the right and wrong at the same time depending on the point of view.
I think the most important question here is: "When is it ok to ban and who makes that choice?".
If we wont draw the line at criminal activity (if this is criminal activity) like in this case, do we draw the line at pedophilia?, calls to violence?, ISIS?
Who makes the call?
You make some very good points here. I think the answer is for Steemit Inc to be clear on their reasons for banning, so that we know what the guidelines are.
Banning criminals in order to stop them proceding with actual crimes seems reasonable. If there is or has been criminal activity within a government that needs to be exposed, that could make it a grey area... which criminals do you side with?
I agree that the most important question is: "When is it OK to ban, and who makes that choice?" We need clarity on this issue from Steemit Inc.
Yeah. I can agree there. If they werent suspected criminals and were akin to wikileaks id side with them. Reading about their previous actions (though that can always be fake news) points in another direction.