To begin, I will admit that I am unfortunately not as early an adopter as some, so my perspective is somewhat limited in relation to what started all this madness. It is evident however, to me and to any one else who spares a moment of observation, that there has been a long standing animosity between @dantheman and a number of whales, including @berniesanders and @smooth.

Much of this "animosity," so to speak, began long before any of us Steemit.com users came to the platform. My understanding is that there has been tension between at least two of these parties since the initial mining of STEEM began. But I don't know all of the intricate details, so I won't comment any further on that, other than to say that the tension has not been solely based on topics or commentary on this platform.

My perspective is limited to that of one who has been on Steemit for a few months and watched as the lack of unity between the most influential of us, has led to a growing division among those of us who have less influence.

I believe that this is the biggest mistake that we non-whales can make: Choosing sides in a perceived "conflict" that most users are completely unaware of or do not understand. I'm sure there have been mistakes and regret on both sides but it is not up to the average user to try to resolve conflicts between the founders and other initial/large stakeholders. And taking sides in it is pretty pointless and rather risky as a small stakeholder. It's really not something that you want to be caught in the middle of, unless you don't like receiving rewards or simply want to be a pawn in their battles. It's best to just keep to yourself and do what you think will benefit you in the long-run.

If it means over turning some other flags with your hefty influence, so that others will associate @berniesanders as the man who saved them from a flag, rather than hit them with one, why not do it?

I'm not sure how much you pay attention to voting on this platform, but @berniesanders, @smooth, and many other whales have absolutely supported people who were flagged for less-than-honorable reasons. Likewise, @dantheman and @ned have done the same thing. It's not as simple as "us vs. them" or "good" whales vs. "evil" whales. There are a lot of dynamics at play here. When @berniesanders says something like, "open your eyes," that may be what he's referring to - the fact that, often behind the scenes, you'll find that some of these "evil" whales are in fact funding development, supporting multiple initiatives and other projects, donating money to charities and contests, and are actually receptive to users and their ideas of how to grow and market this platform.

In the case of @berniesanders and @smooth specifically, they are both heavily involved in multiple projects and have donated a lot of their own STEEM/SBDs to fund them. We're talking about thousands and thousands of SBDs that they easily could have pocketed for themselves. How many of the "good" minnows and dolphins can say that, while they continue to criticize and blame these "evil" whales for damaging the platform?

To be clear - I do not agree with everything that they do. I also do not disagree with everything that @dantheman and Steemit, Inc. does either. I spend a lot of time here on Steemit and in the chat channels. I like to think that I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on - at least a much better understanding than the average user.

All of this condemnation of certain whales simply because they don't see eye-to-eye with the founders is ridiculous. And condemning one set of whales for downvoting while praising another for doing the same thing is equally absurd. I think both sides have valid reasons for it and both sides also have what I think are not-so-good reasons. None of these people are 100% right or wrong any time they act. I think it's silly to believe that these are anything but normal people just like you and me who just happen to have a larger share of STEEM.

If we really want to better understand things around here, we need to first understand that we are all people with our own opinions. Some of us have better-informed opinions than others. Some of us have a larger stake in the platform that can make our opinions "more influential" than others. But this notion that one person is right or wrong based on the size of that stake is a little wrong-headed as well. It doesn't matter if the stakeholder is @dan, @ned, @smooth, @berniesanders, you, me, or anyone else.

In the end, none of this really matters to us as regular users on the platform. The only time you're going to draw the wrong kind of attention to you is when you get involved in matters that are related to these whale conflicts. Other than that, you might catch a random flag if your post has a relatively high potential payout. It happens to a lot of people. Just keep in mind that, when it does happen to you, "calling out" the whale that did it in a new "shitpost" is only going to make things worse. Your best bet would be to let it go or to try to contact the person who flagged you - respectfully.

My only other advice would be this: Don't make posts about whales and how they ought to act towards one another if you don't understand the history between them. You don't know the full story. They're not asking you to moderate. And there is plenty of blame to go around - including for the "good guys" who have done plenty to disappoint and even anger many users through their behavior on Steemit.com and elsewhere.

I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't speak your mind, but if you do so, you'll want to make sure that you have a lot of the facts straight. Otherwise, you could end up on the wrong side of flags that you would probably have earned. And it wouldn't be the first time that happened...or likely the last.