I mean, obviously code can be racist should the human input racism into it. 'tag all black people as inferior' for example.

No you really don't understand. Code is written by people unless you think this code was thought up by some other code and on and on and on.

Here's an example

I own an aparatment complex, in order to filter out some of the applicants I right some innocent appearing code. Lets nix the people who are more likely to go to jail.

Result: no black applicants. Is this code racist? Not inherently I suppose. But on the weekends I go to KKK rallies and wrote the code knowing it was going to be more punishing to the black applicants.

Its still just code, but knowing my intent it is absolutely racist. The witnesses could have easily used this code to further a racist toal, which wouod make the code racist.

Or atleast saying "it cant be racist, its just code" is stupid. I don't think that is the case though. The koreans were punished not for being korean but bscause the witnesses found their 4 million sp and lack of jumping on the bandwagon as a threat.

It had nothing to do with race, but the behaviour of voting in context of the controversy.

And my example had nothing to do with race, it was about the likelyhood of somebody getting arrested. Just because the scrypt wasn't "get rid of the koreans.py" doesn't mean it couldn't have had racist means when choosing the data used.

Same difference

Not at all, an airdrop is a thing given to specific people to promote a coin. What happened was a chain fork where everybody who held the previous token usually gets the new one. Like when bitcoin and bch split.

This is a pretty important difference. People are going to be much less upset at not being able to participate in an aordrop for a brand new coin, then not being able to participate in a chain split.

Especially because the chainsplit is probably going to wreck the value of their actual investment.

I can tell you from personal experience, most of these guys don't like each other much at all. They are not removing each others' stake, nor anyone else they don't like on any other subject. Otherwise, flat earthers would have their stake removed too.

Maybe "seen as a threat" would have been a better wording. The witnesses didnt like the 4 million sp the koreans held and the fact that the dared to not let the witnesses do what ever they like.

And on censorship, yeah you can argue anything. But if we argue not having the stake is censorship, then we can A) argue that we are all censored because there are whales richer than us B) downvoting is censorship because it removes that influence of stake. In which case, you might want to leave Steem, too.

Except everybody starting off on hive is is starting off with the same power they had on steem. Except the people who dared to vote in a way that the hive creators didnt care for.

That is censorship.

The price is going to tank because there is an almost unanimous agreement that Steem has been ruined by Justin. If not, then everyone would just stay on Steem and its value will be fine, no? Hey, thats still even possible. Centralisation works for Facebook, twitter etc. Why not Steem?

Its going to tank much harder because the community just up and left. Sure that might be about Sun, but my point still stands.

And yeah, the exclusion is thus about hive.

The exclusion list is 100% based on voting patterns before the anouncement of hive, and is therefore 100% not about Hive.

I already said in my post I disagree with the way it was done without nuance, and many of the top witnesses are the same (fredrikaa for example) -look at that, disagreements! but as long as those who were caught inthe crossfire have a way to appeal, I don't see the problem. I feel you ignored that part of the post.

The fact that an entire community has to appeal to the witnesses is an issue. They were instantly alienated and told if they want to participate then like everyone else then they have to defend their actions, unlike everyone else.

Where not even gicen to much on what reasons will be acceptable. People who voted because they didnt like the witnesses freezing suns account without conversation or the approval of the community may not he accepted.

Which is the vast mahority of the list. And judging by the perarmiters (voted 2 or more of Suns witnessses) that was the entire point of the script.

A small group made a rushed code, with errors, to get something done quickly. It happens. Hard forks typically go far worse than this with elements that people constantly disagree and fight over. Nobody can win on an initial fork. The community element lets the people, not the rushed, clique coders, iron things out. I'm cool with that.

Errors? I am not arguing against any errors in the code or for anyone who was affected by errors. I am referring to people who were left out because they voted for 2 or more of Trons witnesses. That was the explicit use of the code, and while there are some errors with it, those arent the people I am reffering to.

Absolutely not true. Justin was constantly replacing the top witnesses with more and more stake, bringing in pro-justin witnesses barely a day old. At the same time he was doing very suspicious activities on exchanges with Steem that implied many dangerous outcomes. Time was of the essence, of that I'm sure.

Sure sure, I cant really prove that something was going to take more time then it really did so whatever, I'll just ignore this. That said the price of steem was quite if someone was buying up the millions (10's of millions?) Of steem he would have needed to break the stalemate.

It's hostile to one single counterview

Oh so the Koreans were right on this one.

which defeats the entire concept of the chain.

Voting for witnesses who were against the freezing of a steemians account without conversation or even the direct approval of more then 16 witnesses is against the entire concept of the chain?

Oh man, Hive is going to suffer the same fate that steem will.

If Facebook blocked one of its boardmembers who wanted to remove the social media element of Facebook, is that a 'hostile' act against controversial views, or is it preventing the core point of Facebook from being removed?

Its both, that said the koreans weren't planning on removing anything. It was the witnesses who were planning to remove Suns stake. Again, without conversation or support from the nessisary witnesses.

You can argue it was just a soft fork, but punishing people for not jumping on the bandwagon comes off as extremely hostile against a group of people who thought it was excessive and unnessisary.

Its not like these people would have been fine with Justin throwing his stake around. The witnesses made the first move here, he didnt vote for anyone untill he felt like the stake was threatened.

That's now how whataboutism works. It only works if I failed to counter the argument and simply deflected with a whataboutism.

It was either a part of yoir argument making it what aboutism, or just a completely off topic rant. What was your point in putting it in there?