— SteemCN

drakos (70) · 5 years ago

If you're ok with censorship, I wonder what you're doing on social media blockchain.

$0.57

noisy (67) · 5 years ago

We want to get money... He doesn't care on what engine this site is working on as long as he gets paid

8 votes

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

The joke's on the@steemchiller then, because if you're "in this for the money" you're frighteningly naive.

yakubgafar1 (25) · 4 years ago

Wow

$0.00

4 votes

suchka (25) · 4 years ago

ага,вау

$0.00

https://steemit.com/hive-171744/@logiczombie/q7tdnv#@logiczombie/q7tdnv

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

"the hive" is already censoring accounts. Including @steemchiller.

// Accounts excluded [FROM HIVE AIRDROP] who voted a minimum of two sockpuppets or proxied someone who voted a minimum of two and who didn't unvote before the hive announcement with more than 1k sp

So, not so much a "democracy" as much as it's more like a VOTE FOR THE RIGHT ACCOUNTS OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.

shadowspub (70) · 5 years ago

his account is not censored. It's there waiting for him should he choose to log in and use it. He didn't receive the airdrop which isn't an entitlement. There is however a process through which he can gain that airdrop and many have reached out to encourage him to use it.

$0.03

7 votes

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

He didn't receive the airdrop which isn't an entitlement.

Please explain what you mean. Isn't the entire value-theory of HIVE that it's a COPY of steem?

Imagine if NOBODY got an "airdrop"?? HOW many people do you think would move to HIVE?

BY EXCLUDING ACCOUNTS FROM AUTOMATIC "AIRDROP" BASED ON VOTING BEHAVIOR, YOU ARE SIGNALLING CAPRICIOUS AUTHORITARIANISM (FASCISM).

So, not so much a "democracy" as much as it's more like a VOTE FOR THE RIGHT ACCOUNTS OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.

WHY WOULD ANYONE BEG TO BE PART OF A PROJECT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN SINGLED-OUT FOR EXCLUSION FROM?

I'D SAY "FUCK-YOU".

shadowspub (70) · 5 years ago

yep Hive is a 'copy' of the Steem code ... a copy that those who created it had the right to decide what stayed what changed.

In this case they chose to create a starting point that dropped stake to people who didn't vote on sock puppets based on a criteria which was coded in and decided by the code.

That was a somewhat arbitrary starting point for some. For others who get that those who create get to decide we understand the starting point is created by those who create.

They then decided rather than arbitrarily decree that would be the final word, they created a process through which the community could agree to have the airdrop go to those the community didn't see as a threat even though they had a lapse of judgement.

That's democracy in action when those who could choose to control, choose to put the decision in the hands of the collective.

With the behaviour of Justin Sun and his arbitrary, dictatorial censorship, many would have made the move without an airdrop. They would have powered down their accounts and bought HIVE because of it being what Steem should have been. Like they are doing now.

Many of those same people would not be powering down and would be staying here except for the dictatorship from Sun. The more I see what has stayed here, the more I am relieved I'm among those leaving.

Caprcious fascism is alive and well, it's known as Justin Sun... enjoy

$0.03

4 votes

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago (edited)

I hope the HIVE flourishes.

They definitely have a lot of talented and well-intentioned people on-board.

I just kind of wish they'd stop pretending they're "a decentralized censorship-resistant platform".

And they still haven't taken any steps to prevent someone (or some small group of oligarchs) from accumulating a large HIVE stake and taking-over-the-place (exactly like the SUN fiasco).

shadowspub (70) · 5 years ago

they are certainly closer to decentralized and censorship resistant than Steem is currently.

As for a repeat of the Sun fiasco... unless the stakeholder is already sitting there waiting to strike... it would take someone accumulating a large HIVE stake now 30 days to be able to vote in their sock puppets. That was coded into the HF and is a start on changing the governance model. The next steps will come from the community consultations and further dicussions.

$0.03

3 votes

hone.heke (51) · 5 years ago

they are certainly closer to decentralized and censorship resistant than Steem is currently.

how on earth did you reach that conclusion?

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

30 days seems like plenty of time for them to soft-fork (cheat) any investor they disapprove of out of their stake-value.

The funny thing is that I imagined the SUN was going to have his scheduled meeting with the top 50 witnesses and then simply buy-off the 17 he needed. I'm pretty sure that would have worked perfectly.

Show 15 more replies

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

Kid #1 - I broke the rules because that other kid was going to use the rules against me.

Kid #2 - I only used the rules against that other kid because they BROKE THE RULES (even though it's my god-given-right to use the rules as I see fit as long as I don't BREAK THEM).

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

The next steps will come from the community consultations and further dicussions.

That's part of "the problem".

They should be focusing on establishing FEWER principled rules (AXIOMS).

Instead of piling on MORE ad hoc, opinion based rules.

Show 9 more replies

suchka (25) · 4 years ago

кого ты тут понаписал? вот делать тебе нечего конечно. Боже,его рили кто-то читает?

$0.00

joycebubble (51) · 4 years ago

Interesting.

$0.00

juan.herrera (32) · 4 years ago

exacto

$0.00

jameshanz32 (25) · 4 years ago

We want to get money and tske care of iur families but he doesn't care

$0.00

logiczombie (57) · 4 years ago

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

$0.00

richynazy (25) · 4 years ago

great

$0.00

ezekiel100 (25) · 4 years ago

he's in for the money

$0.00

pfunk (72) · 5 years ago

Just how do a handful of posts put Steem in danger? That's absurd.

$0.54

bromius (44) · 5 years ago

A handful? :)
And also absurdedly upvoted by known accounts! They still have their pending rewards!
Think you were against spam and milking!

$0.04

pfunk (72) · 5 years ago (edited)

If all of the fools left on Steem consider Justin the leader, and the leader is upvoting his own post to over $300 with @steemit, then I suppose we should all follow Steem's leader into the ground.

$0.69

3 votes

bromius (44) · 5 years ago (edited)

Must be for visibility, don't you have made it also?! XD

$0.00

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

Self-voting should never have been considered a "crime" in the first place.

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

Which I didn't really mind that much at first, but with hundreds of lines of blank space??

It was making every comment section practically impossible to read.

akiroq (65) · 5 years ago

It was far far far more than a handful of posts. Posts that were being left absolutely everywhere.

I believe in free-speech. However, I don't think you would appreciate someone coming to your home and spray painting self-promotion and hate speech everywhere. That would be taking the concept of free-speech a bit far, no? I'm pretty sure in that case it would be considered vandalism and abuse.

pfunk (72) · 5 years ago

There's a massive difference between muting accounts that are blatantly comment spamming (which was already done before Justin bought Stinc) and censoring individual posts that happened to be about Hive and in many cases entire accounts. Furthermore I have seen zero hate speech. Your argument is a false equivalence.

You can see all of the censored posts and ENTIRE ACCOUNTS that were not comment spamming added to the Steemit blacklist here: https://github.com/steemit/condenser/commits/bridge-api-dev-test

That crosses a huge line and is not acceptable behavior for someone who claims to be a majority stakeholder of a "decentralized" (lol) blockchain, Steem.

$0.53

akiroq (65) · 5 years ago

Lucky you that you have seen zero hate speech. I guess you really sheltered yourself from seeing that. How, I do not know. It was everywhere. Particularly in group chats, and by many of "our" so called esteemed members and leaders. It was all there, racism, threats, name-calling, swearing, everything. Many of those chats could be (and were) seen by many. Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is a logical fallacy.

And who pray-tell do you think programmed those bots to spam users' blogs and their posts? Wouldn't be any of the same people would it?

Wouldn't be any of those people who threatened to fuck Justin and his team, would it?

Don't you know where that phrase originally came from? It originally came from chat and not from Justin. Justin just responded to it. But oh the mockery when he did.

If these people were civil, if they didn't lie, slander, defame, threaten, spam, or engage in other nefarious activity against Justin, then I agree. It was not acceptable to censor them.

However, if they did engage in that type of behavior, this then becomes a whole other issue.

I am sure Justin has an excellent legal team, who have gathered sufficient evidence to support all of his actions.

But of course, believe whatever you like.

Also, this is not the first-time posts or users have been censored on Steem.

Also, Justin didn't create the stake which he bought.

But well you know, if you want power..you have to give the people something to love...and something to hate. Right? Isn't that how it works?

brundlefly (33) · 5 years ago

I signed up on Steemit forever ago and lost my password until just recently.

$0.00

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

100% this.

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

I'm pretty sure in that case it would be considered vandalism and abuse.

100% this.

joshman (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

I'm ok with censoring when the future of Steem would otherwise be in danger.

How very sycophantic of you. You think people advertising another blockchain on STEEM is the greatest risk to it? Especially people who still own significant stake and resources? Laughable.

$0.23

6 votes

liondani (69) · 5 years ago

I'm ok with censoring when the future of Steem would otherwise be in danger.

If steem had a chance to survive, it certainly has it not after starting censoring.I know many that took their decision to abandon completely steem exactly because of that. Not that it was not obvious that it will happen at some point, but some had still illusions. I think you can see that too, I consider you are smart enough to realize where it will all end up...

$0.00

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

If steem had a chance to survive, it certainly has it not after starting censoring.

Are you kidding me? Marky and the rest of the censorship (secret) "blacklist" crew all moved to HIVE. There should be much LESS censorship on steem now.

juanmolina (68) · 5 years ago

Regards dear friend @liondani.

If steem had a chance to survive, it certainly has it not after starting censoring.

Acts of censorship were currently directed at a group of well-identified users. We can understand this attack as an act of revenge, but ... can we really be sure that these actions will not be extended to the rest of the users?

Changes in TOS give a lot to think about. A legal framework for applying censorship is being established.

Your friend, Juan.

$0.00

shadowspub (70) · 5 years ago

I'm ok with censoring when the future of Steem would otherwise be in danger. They should not use the old chain to promote the new one in the way they did.

The censoring placed Steem in more danger than the posts promoting the new chain. Every clone of Steem that has come into existence has done exactly the same thing. Whaleshares was one of the most persistent in doing so.

What the censoring did was move a lot of people, like me, who had every intention of staying on both chains with the hope that both would thrive in their own right to power down and decide to move on.

Justin Sun and his enabler Ned were the maker of their own misery. I didn't agree with the freezing of funds. I did agree with triggering the non-voting that was in the code and had been for years. I also didn't agree with voting for sock puppets especially when their creator wasn't even bothering to do the basics of appearing to run a witness properly like updating price feeds.

After seeing Sun's childish response to the whole situation -- the censoring accounts and arbitrarily changing the TOS to limit free speech was the last straw.

Having said all that, I'm among those who would support you getting the airdrop on Hive should you choose to pursue it simply because of the work you've done and the contributions to the community you've made in the past before this ugly situation occurred.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

One of the main reasons Steem failed was the way how Ned handled the situation with Dan & EOS (remember the mr.delegation vote?). Guess, history is repeating itself, just that it's Justin vs Hive now.

$0.00