STEEM: Do We Really Stand For Freedom Of Speech??? Advertising Ban or Censorship???

The other night I exchanged a couple comments with @V4vapid when the conversation turned to the topic of advertising.

You can read it here:

https://steemit.com/indymedia/@v4vapid/shifting-tides-the-indy-media-explosion-on-steemit#@taskmaster4450/re-v4vapid-re-taskmaster4450-re-v4vapid-shifting-tides-the-indy-media-explosion-on-steemit-20180205t030150763z

@V4vapid mentioned that he naturally wants to Steemit to remain advertising-free. I think most on here will agree that is a desired outcome. Unlike Facebook and other sites, it is nice to open up a page without being flooded with ads. The same is true for D.Tube. We can view videos without having to wait for the advertisements to go through.

I think if the proposal to allow ads was passed before the community, it would be voted down. I mean, seriously, is there more of a no-brainer in the world?

Or is there?

One thing that comes to mind is do we have the "right" to ban advertising?

We promote ourselves as censorship-free. Yet, if we ban people from saying something, isn't that censorship? We like to say we are open and accepting of all kinds of speech, doesn't advertising fall under the same category. Is it my right to tell you what you can post on your blog? The answer is obviously "no". Then, by the same token, is it within the community right to dictate what you can or cannot do? I think most would agree it cannot.

Hence the dilemma that arises. What was once an easy situation suddenly turns a bit cloudier.

Which brings up another point: who has the rights we are referring to?

Many governments, including the U.S., determined that corporations have the same rights as people. Certainly, many on here take exception to that so it is not a given that the community will arrive at that conclusion. But again, do we have the right to ban corporations from opening accounts on this blockchain? Getting back to the individual, should we stop someone who wants to open up an account in his/her business name? Aren't we censoring then?

We obviously saw what happens to sites like Facebook when the advertising model kicks in. One thing I will say is that with cryptocurrency, the need to garner money via advertising is mostly eliminated. Facebook and other social media sites depend upon traffic which enables them to amass advertising revenue. This is how their business is funded.

On the blockchain is the payout schedule for the cryptocurrency going forward. The blockchain, itself, is what has the value, not the apps. Facebook has to generate revenue to keep Wall Street happy. On here, the blockchain generates the revenue through the token distribution. The only variable is how much STEEM is worth compared to other currencues, fiat or crypto.

I guess the bottom line is there is a choice. Is a ban on advertising more important than being free of censorship?

As I ponder this, it does not look like we can have both. If the community can prevent someone (or something) from advertising, what else could they prevent? What is the next step?

Isn't this what we witnessed from many governments? They start small and continually erode people's rights. At first you cannot scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater. This makes sense to everyone, so they agree. The next thing you know, there is a thing called political correctness and if you are on the wrong side of that, watch out.

It appears our buddies over at Facebook and Google are on a censorship rampage taking people out left and right. How well do you think that is going to work for them long-term? Even in the short-term, we see a number of people on here who said they are done with those two sites for this specific reason.

My feeling is that all models are going to be disrupted by blockchain. As we enter the Age of Abundance, we are going to see the need for advertising diminish. This is really going to become obvious once the next generation of blockchain apps enter the picture i.e. DAOs or DACs. As these become more common, I believe the advertising model will lessen.

I do not want to hijack this article, so I won't delve into my theory on this other than to say one should not assume AI or software will have human emotions, motives, or beliefs. In fact, it is very likely they do not.

Personally, I am like @V4vapid; I want to see Steemit advertising-free. If, for some reason, the central players there decided to raise money through advertising, I would choose an interface that allowed me to operate ad-free.

That said, I do not think that we can just ban advertising. Being one who abhors censorship, having witnessed what the governments of the world did (and now these mega-corporations), I do not feel we have the right to tell anyone (or anything) what is can post. While I am not for giving a corporation the same rights as a person, how can we tell? Also, if Apple wanted to open up a page here, who are we to say no? And what if it wasn't Apple but,rather, some individual shop owner who sells Apple products?

When you start saying Apple cannot sign up, then the door is opened. After that it is whites, blacks, Christians, Muslims, disabled, or left-handed people who cannot sign up. Then we progress to the non-educated, unemployed, and non-wealthy.

Carry this out far enough and the only ones who will be on STEEM in 15 years will be Bill Gates, Tim Cook, and Elon Musk.

(Sorry Elon, you are out too..you are just too loony with that trying to fly into space while drilling into the ground)

What are you thoughts on this? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section...this is a subject that I think warrants discussion.

If you found this article informative, please give it an upvote and a resteem.

Pictures by Google Images