It's not centralized. The data doesn't go through any centralized point, the validation doesn't go through any centralized point. The data doesn't get queried through any centralized point. It haz ZERO censorship and saying it's the most censored abused site is redunculous beyound any measure. Saying that the site requires everyone to be a yes man to every word written to be rewarded is equally perplexing and it's obviously not in the realm of how a lot of the interactions work, as I am by far the most outspoken and critical of almost everyone I have meet and I obviously got rewarded ever since I've joined, if not outright through curation then directly through the thank yous and gratified validation or simply through genuine responses.
There is no platform that has rewarded anything comparable to the ammount of blogs and people, let alone the ammount of interactions period like steem has.
You keep putting forward an inconsiderable suggestion that was designed to be rendered OBSOLETE by the premise steem is built on. You keep thinking that blatant shadow banning, censorship and a committee are viable options. You have not offered one thought of how that could be implemented, what it means for the people here, and how will it police itself. You are so mistaken that you spare absolutely not one iota of brainpower to consider calling the largest validated, verified and decentralized, censorship proof, bastion of freedom on the internet the most censored site.
Posted using Partiko Android
You are wrong on what centralized and decentralized is, when all control and decisions made are controlled by the top that is centralized. You evidently think that a person's ability to up vote and down vote make it a decentralized platform....if that's what makes a decentralized platform it's only in your mind, decentralized would mean the site overall, as inclusive of everybody participating in every aspect of the site as a whole not just up voting or down voting. No body on here would be waking up to surprises springing forth out of HF's they'd all be aware prior to every aspect and had been given an opportunity to vote on changes, that is a decentralized platform, hell this site doesn't even allow it's members to vote on a representative to participate with management and witnesses let alone give people an individual say.
It may have well been based on a good intention but that good intention wasn't well thought out when it pertains to people who would and could abuse what that intention was meant for, it was never meant to be able to retaliate or carry on a grudge because you made a comment they didn't like on a post. You ask me to prove well I very well can. You go to my blog and everything, absolutely everything you see on there that is flagged was done so out of revenge for making a comment or statement those people didn't like on something they posted. It wasn't good enough fo them to just flag my comments on their post they had to carry it off into flagging whatever I had available showing in rewards on my blog. I had one happen just last week. Kafkanarchy was mad because of statements in a blog post concerning Adam Kokesh, it wasn't good enough for him to just flag those comments he had to run over and see what pending rewards I had and take those and flag them to. Like I said he hasn't been the first. This site is the most restrictive punitive anti free speech site on the planet and until they change that nasty habit of people being able to strike down every available resource you have coming to you it remain as such.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is no "top" as an entity that controls or makes all decisions.
I don't think decentralization is people's ability to up vote or downvote and nowhere was that implied so I want to know, why you think that's what I think.
There are no "surprise" forks and there never have been.
The consensus of HF doesn't work by "everyone voting on changes" the hf consensus forms when 2/3 of the top 30 witnesses reach consensus.
Each and every single account can chose 30 different witnesses, so you are wrong in saying that people have no way to vote on witnesses on this site.
It is not about "good intentions" but Game Logic and combating abuse WITHOUT a redundant, completely syatem compromising position of ADMIN/MOD.
It doesn't matter why someone rates something as they do. Curation and voting on rewards will never be censorship.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Um...the last HF was a HUGE surprise to everyone and left a lot of people very angry including myself. Furthermore ask any witness they DO NOT represent the people. I was under that mistaken notion once until I was corrected by a witness that they do not carry or influence the top tier of concerns brought to them by people. I didn't say curation and voting on rewards would be censorship I said the abuse of the flagging system to move beyond the intent of flagging a comment is censorship.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The intent for flagging is to remove rewards.
The last hf was not a huge surprise at all.
Why would I ask them that? I can clearly go and chose 30 witnesses to vote on. I don't know how you think witnesses work, but they're not the ones you go and seek favor from or tattle tale, you simply chose WHO validates blocks for network integrity.
You said exactly that, and you're saying it again by calling curation abuse, you equated why someone curates something as proper or improper. The only way to impropriely curate is to curate things other than you would, so upvoting things you don't like and would otherwise flag (properly or as retaliation) and down voting things you'd otherwise upvote (properly or as favor). The intent is simply to REMOVE REWARDS or to ALLOCATE REWARDS. Nothing less nothing more.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
ps...maybe you should go look at ned's last post announcing another meeting this Thursday and go through the comments, you'll soon learn what the reality of how centralized this place is.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I doubt it because as I pointed out you don't seem to offer any sensibility discerning between what is censorsed and what is curated as poor, just so you are convinced that this place is centralized, after all people having the ability to curate whichever way and for whatever reason they want is the most totalitarian system of censorship.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit