You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Can You Explain Why This Post Exposing an Alleged High Profile Scammer on Steemit is Censored, Despite a Ratio of 44 Upvotes to 1 Downvote!?
There are no terms for steem, none that were explicitly agreed to anyway.
Yes people will disagree but it's only an issue if it's consequential like a lot of people, or a large majority, but what are some reasons that you consider justifiable for people to disagree with spam, tag spam and otherwise curation for those ends?
Oh, I meant to say that there are terms of service for Steemit, not Steem. Since Steem and Steemit are both created by the same group, I combine them in my mind.
The terms of service for Steemit specifically includes a term in section 17 that is relevant.
Cases of blatant plagiarism with no added value from the author and deliberate malicious misuse of the software that amounts to criminal intent are valid reasons to downvote, i think. Deliberate propaganda and misinformation is also a valid reason. Some might say that some of these are subjective, but ultimately I feel that the absolute truth can be known in all cases - though it might require a lot of research to find it.
Nope, it's irrelevant what someone writes as Terms of Service if nobody agreed to anything.
Not at all, Steemit Inc. Is subject to local laws and as such could be compelled to comply with them or face termination. As such they could choose to remove accounts from Steemit and, although I am not familiar enough with the licensing for Steem, could potentially also be forced to effectively enforce laws on Steem too. It's a new technology, so the case law is not clear - i think - however, a blockchain is not an ungovernable system.
Unfortunately that doesn't mean anything, the point remains, that if I didn't agree to any terms they aren't enforceable, it doesn't matter what Steemit Inc the company is subject to, the data on the chain, the tokens, the account is mine, it's not theirs, and they have no right over the blockchain or the data in the blockchain.
They have right to determine who does and does not use their services.
No they don't, they don't have any right to do that. It's my content, it's my tokens, and it's my account.
I am not aware of a single example of that logic being held up and supported in court, but I am not the world's leading 'legal' expert.
Search for it, Terms of Service need to be explicitly agreed to to be enforceable, I've posted links before about this issue from court rulings on this.
The logic is contract law, because nothing was explicitly agreed to there is no way to enforce or honor things that weren't agreed to.