You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Can You Explain Why This Post Exposing an Alleged High Profile Scammer on Steemit is Censored, Despite a Ratio of 44 Upvotes to 1 Downvote!?
I doubt that, I doubt that they want to rely on courts or laws to back them up, if you follow dan, he is vociferously against that.
I know dan is against that, but he is working with a lot of others whose views I am not familiar with - generally though it is unusual for such a group to agree to completely ignore legislation.
It's not unusual if the group leader, or project leader doesn't care for legislation.
I have never heard of a large, successful project taking that approach. It will certainly put off a lot of investors.
You don't consider steem successful?
I was responding to you saying that "it's not unusual" which implies there are several examples at least, beyond steem. I am saying that if Steemit/Steem are operating in that way then they are the only example I know of and therefore, I am unclear as to how the experiment will play out for them in the medium term.. The uncertainty means that while Steem/Steemit can be said to be successful currently, there is a question mark over it's future success due to the potential for government interference.
Government interference is an open ended term, if the government makes an account and posts to steem, is that not government interference? And the only rebuttal to that, is So what? You have to demonstrate how and why it's the case.
There are many people that participate in the open source movement which would be in line with the philosophy of steem's developer.
Potential for government interference is fairly large and thus the open ended term was used. The government posting to steem is not interference to me, no. I am not talking about that, I am talking about them moving to do whatever is necessary to shut down competition to their control agenda. In general, they have shown themselves to operate with no scruples at all.
I agree that there are many who would support the idea, I am just saying that there are many who would otherwise have supported the idea but would turn away due to the contractual situation.
Why, why do you think that many would have supported steem if it had reserved rights exclusively like removing or restricting access? It's contrary to the idea of steem first and foremost, so those that would support steem they would do it in spite of that and especially because such reserved rights don't exist.
Wouldn't whatever is necessary to shut down competition to their control agenda not involve otherwise registering an account and posting to the network? And so what, you have to define exactly how that is possible, or precisely how could the government bring down steem, not only is it designed to be resistant to such things, but just like torrents, it distributes itself in a decentralized manner which has demonstrated itself for over a decade now.