C-squared has, and always will, support content brought in by the community as long as it doesn’t go against our rules (spam or plagiarism). We have never, and will never, change our voting based on what a large account wants us to do.. we are fully non profit and are made of volunteers.. there is no reason for us to play politics and we don’t. We just curate 🙂

My comments outside of the one above are solely just me speaking though, and not on behalf of c-squared.. just want to make that clear.

To me quite frankly this seems like just miscommunication. You have a stake holder who wants to stop all voting buying and trading, and by the technical definition- that is what sbi is. That could be said about many “communities” that offer upvotes just for being members (and sometimes delegating) though too. It’s one of those “pick your battles” cases imo.. is the community or project adding value and helping to ensure those votes are not going to abuse? If so.. not sure it’s really worth going after tbh. But quite frankly, he’s not wrong that it is in fact vote buying at its core - I would just question if it’s actually done in a negative way.

Anyways, I hope you continue being a part of the community and sharing your content. Try not to focus so much on one individuals downvotes and rather focus on the engagement and interactions you enjoy. I’ve found normally these things are short term and work themselves out (especially when they aren’t blown up into a bigger deal).

Sorry I butted in, just the witness being removed is something I saw on our system and made me come look, then I got curious what was going on.