You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: People claim to not like bullies... until they show up with a bag of candy.
I'll just try to be as objective and unbiased as I can. That will be tough, but I'm really going to try.
I'll just try to be as objective and unbiased as I can. That will be tough, but I'm really going to try.
despite what I think of bernie and his mission, he attacked you for no reason and you are my friend. I will have your back in a conflict, but that does not mean I agree with you on the character of bernie or even on the use of downvotes.
If you dont have the power to shape opinions around yo
Those who censor nations and people usually think that way as well. Where do you draw the line? (EDIT: Not an attack, simply curiosity)
I deleted parts (and meant to delete the whole paragraph, damn) because I am not sure myself.
There is music I love and support, there is tons of music that I dont really care about, I listen to it occasionally. Then there are some songs that I just outright hate and that make turn off the radio.
It is not cool to censor someone, but if that someone is just spouting toxic non-sense or even if you think it is "highly overrated" you should be able to vote against it. I dont do it and i dont plan to do it because this is not the etiquette of steemit.
Anyone can choose to believe anything they want is nonsense. The down vote lists here spam, plagiarism, and abuse and they added disagreement over rewards which I believe was a huge mistake.
For example: I think caviar sucks and tastes pretty bad, does that mean I should be able to say people shouldn't be able to pay for it. Should I be able to state that because I dislike it that I dispute the amount people are paying for it and force it down to $0. Making posts takes time. It differs by person. If people choose to up vote something that is them showing they like it. Why does it matter if I don't like it? I simply ignore it and don't vote on it.
Yet, on this platform when you down vote and you have sufficient power you can cancel out the interests of other people.
They will argue it is not censorship, but then that starts to sound like the excuses youtube is making for things these days. They are not censored, you just can't up vote them, they can't be monetized, they will not show up as recommended, and people cannot comment on them. Yes, that is their latest thing and people are pissed.
Yet in reality when someone powerful down votes something because they don't like it here they can effectively cancel out ALL monetization... If the down vote had no effect on that then most people wouldn't give a shit about the fact their vote count was lowered. When you take away their chance to earn from people that do like what they wrote then that becomes a VERY hostile environment.
If you don't like it, don't vote on it. Pretty simple. That doesn't mean you should be able to tell other people the fact they liked it doesn't matter because you are bigger and can make it like they don't exist.
OK, two examples.
Trump vs Hillary. You don't want to vote Trump but you want to cancel out the opinion of people that voted for Hillary, hence you should be able to downvote Hillary, not because you want to censor Hillary, but because you are against the ideas Hillary propagates.
I have seen some people comment on my articles with straight up radical right comments. Now you know my position on nationalsocialism and such but i don't want to be associated with "actual nazies", so I would want to downvote their comments if I see too many of them or even downvote their posts. Not to censor their opinion, but to show that I and we as a community disagree.
The devil is in the detail. If I see a new User I dont like and auto downvote him so that he can never have a voice on Steemit, then that is bs. If you see content that has 100$+ rewards while you think it does not deserve that high of a payout since the content is mediocre at best, then that is something different.
I dont think Bernie ever planned on systematicly downvoting you. He would be insane to try. It would be a war and I would fight on your side. That is what I meant to say initially. If worst comes to worse, my ideas of voting are not as important as the well-being of my friends.
As long as there is money involved in the voting process and it is visible then when a person down votes they are also cancelling out what other people wanted to pay that person. This can be perceived as a form of censorship, but if people do a semantic dance they can say it is not.
I don't think Bernie was necessarily the person that down voted me on that post. I am still digging, but most of the accounts I am coming across that are directly linked to him are not in the list of people that did the down vote. If Bernie had down voted me I'd likely still be $0. :) Whomever owns steemed and all the accounts linked to it is the culprit here.
I told Bernie I'd not accuse him of things without pretty strong evidence in my investigation and I mean to keep that word. As such, I still may be one of the few people he hasn't downvoted. My investigation will show more.
The problem here is the person gets to decide what is "mediocre". I think Caviar is a shitty taste so I don't think it is worth paying that price for. :) So should I now be able to drop it to $0.
I believe if we want to include reward pool as a justification for a downvote that it should only be tied to gaming the system. If someone is obviously exploiting something in the system due to us not having found a programmatic way to protect against it without introducing new problems then that is about the only time I'd support such an action.
I do have an idea, I don't think anyone would go for it, but I am kicking it around and may write about it at some point.
I actually thought it would be strange if bernie was the culprit. He said "nothing to downvote here" in the comments. It also does not fit into the typical bernie downvote.
He and I were going back and forth in comments right before the down vote hit. I wrongly assumed they must be affiliated with him.