How very ironic the same person/account who agreed with and even joined in on exposing such malicious Whales and their malicious tactics have changed their stance to defend such actions and people... what's going on, has @craig-grant and his cult of "Craig is MONEY GOD" followers managed to invade his brilliant mind and corrupt it (same malicious Whale who's 5 flags nearly nuked my account, I accused of combining malicious flagging with self upvoting to drain the rewards pool dry)?
yeah just recently he was laughing with me in the comments about the person that made my rep this and now he is defending them. idk what happened.
I hope your rep gets back up there as it sux being negative because of one person.
What actions and what people have I defended? You must have me confused because self voting is a recognized issue, it's not something that needs exposing, but in that instance I did "expose" it, or argued against self voting when people were saying that self voting is ok. Here I am though, arguing that Flagging people is not Censorship. That is ironic? Maybe you can demonstrate that flagging suppresses you and removes content or it's availability, I still don't know what that has to do with self voting.
I speak of the tag-team action of abusing the flag to return potential payout rewards to the pool in combination with self-upvoting to basically steal those rewards from said pool. & now it appears you are defending those who could potentially be abusing the flag to suppress users.
I could use my flag all day trying to suppress idiots posting youtube music videos with one sentence b.s. to accompany it, yet choose to use my upvotes to try and help others reach their goals. Anyways....
Look, I get everyone is not going to see eye to eye on this topic. I'm sticking with the flag as a means of censorship AND curation I still stand by my word that it is being abused to suppress the exposure of someone or something (thus censorship) as well as being used appropriately to express a displeasure or disagreement with someone else's content (i.e. the naked 3 year old boy in a bathtube I flagged and commented "#pedohunters" on).
As with much in life, there are always two sides to every Coin (and sometimes 3, while other times 4 or more sides).
But what is the point of the flag? To suppress visibility of those thought to be spamming or posting plagiarized/inappropriate content. What is the definition of censorship? To suppress... to defend it as anything else is simple denial.
No offence intended @baah.... personally , I appreciate how vocal you are in your compassion of any subject (whether I agree or not).
Censorship has to demonstrate suppression, you can take your rigamorale and shove it at this point, you cannot demonstrate it's suppressing people from expressing themselves when obviously they can express themselves in spite of it.
If you don't use the correct terms you'll call self defense murder if the attacker dies.
If I can post in spite of being flagged, and continue to create content that nobody can alter, then you have just defied suppression. It's not suppression if it doesn't suppress, it's not censorship unless you twist the definition to mean "visibility of information on a decentralized, open source, transparent blockchain front-end". Equating it to curation.
Alright, I get it. tomato, tomato; better to just let it die rather than burn another bridge.
You're an interesting cat. A bit rougher than I expected, yet interesting none the less.
You act as if a system used to discourage certain acts, not banish them is used to banish certain acts by discouraging them.
It doesn't banish anything. The point of the flag is to CURATE CONTENT, to give it or remove value from it, to vote for or against it so many shares with so much of your voting power.
Absolutely correct from your technical standpoint. I guess the fact it can be abused for other purposes (including the intent to destroy an account one doesn't approve of for one reason or another) is a completely different subject perhaps deserving of it's own different post.
Apologies for spamming, I will try to restrain myself in the future.
It can be used to destroy one account's reputation, yes. Destroying one account and destroying one accounts reputation are not equivalent. These post are mostly from the same users who feel entitled to the rewards their content receives but not the flags, ever, for whatever reason. The point is that saying it's censorship is simply crying and whining about what other people think of your stuff, I have yet to get an answer to Why is calling flagging censorship so important and what does it try to resolve? It's important because the story relies on Poor Me, the big bad people picked on poor meeeee, and it seeks to resolve as "he's bad because he flagged me".
I have been flagged, and not once did I resort to "defending" myself with petty threats, or SPAMMING GAY PORN. There is nothing worse on this platform than threatening spam to get people to comply with your demands.
That is censorship in that you're forcing people to suppress themselves. That is exactly suppressing people from expressing themselves. If people cannot flag your content without fearing your endless gay porn spam, they then are suppressed effectively from expressing themselves because you will post gay porn spam on everything. Fear is used to force people to comply, it's unnerving, first you have to stretch the truth and call flagging/curating censorship even though it's not stopping you from expressing yourself, then you have to lie and call a threat self defense and try to justify it by saying you were forced. Nobody forces anyone to act a certain way because they curate content a certain way, it might encourage the person, but it certainly doesn't force them.
Steem is a wonderful community, but because shoulders will rub, noses will bump, the point is that the principle, the idea behind steem itself is Censorship Proof free speech. The principles of anarchy is what the heart of steem is about. It's the right to not be forced.
When drama queens make drama and vilify people, they erode the trust of the community, they raise doubt and that gives way to mistrusts, and mistrust doesn't equate to community.
When @skeptic cries censorship there is no more conversation to be had, there is no more sensibility, and reason goes out the window. When he plugs his rhetoric everywhere and resorts to threats and drama like "prove that it's not censorship" it doesn't bring about engagement or value, it's noise at best, at worst someone gets the impression that this place is a scam. There is nothing to resolve with "censorship, censorship everywhere, flagots, centralized whales control everything".
Point and fact is you and Craig-Grant. You clearly have no chance of getting through to him with your tactics, because first you attempt to vilify him, and what's the common ground then? When asshole over here, skeptic, goes and tries to find common ground, o wait, he doesn't fucking do sensible.
Spamming that stuff doesn't invite conversation, it doesn't work to resolve anything, it is there more or less to make noise.