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!?
I appreciate that, however, there is also a caveat which is that space is made for situations where the users of a site, for example, could be reasonably expected to have reviewed the terms of service on a site where they are available.
I don't actually know for sure if the TOS is agreed to or not on signup, because I did it a long time ago - but assuming that they are not then it would not be wrong to say that from a mainstream business perspective, that is a bit of a mistake. I suspect that the heavy assistance they are getting with EOS will mean that there is an agreement to TOS there.
I got to say, even as EOS is targeted to businesses there is no reason to think that it will have explicit terms of service or some kind of reserved rights to pull access. It's inherently against the very foundation of such project, same as steem.
maybe - we shall see
I doubt that, I doubt that they want to rely on courts or laws to back them up, if you follow dan, he is vociferously against that.
I know dan is against that, but he is working with a lot of others whose views I am not familiar with - generally though it is unusual for such a group to agree to completely ignore legislation.
It's not unusual if the group leader, or project leader doesn't care for legislation.
I have never heard of a large, successful project taking that approach. It will certainly put off a lot of investors.
You don't consider steem successful?
I was responding to you saying that "it's not unusual" which implies there are several examples at least, beyond steem. I am saying that if Steemit/Steem are operating in that way then they are the only example I know of and therefore, I am unclear as to how the experiment will play out for them in the medium term.. The uncertainty means that while Steem/Steemit can be said to be successful currently, there is a question mark over it's future success due to the potential for government interference.
Government interference is an open ended term, if the government makes an account and posts to steem, is that not government interference? And the only rebuttal to that, is So what? You have to demonstrate how and why it's the case.
There are many people that participate in the open source movement which would be in line with the philosophy of steem's developer.
Potential for government interference is fairly large and thus the open ended term was used. The government posting to steem is not interference to me, no. I am not talking about that, I am talking about them moving to do whatever is necessary to shut down competition to their control agenda. In general, they have shown themselves to operate with no scruples at all.
I agree that there are many who would support the idea, I am just saying that there are many who would otherwise have supported the idea but would turn away due to the contractual situation.