Disagree with which part? The part about Dan Larimer is a verifiable fact which I was kind enough to offer a citation which is honestly supererogatory of me. Musk is considering buying Twitter to restructure it but him buying a bunch of Hive won't solve its problems. These people engaged Dan in bad faith and it's unlikely they'll make an impact with Musk. You're welcome to shill and dogpile but it won't change the facts. Musk would vet the chain and find out what's already known about it. Arguments can be made that downvoting is necessary for a healthy ecosystem but it's still anti free speech by definition.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Downvotes have no impact on speech, just rewards for that speech from our commons.
All posts, and any subsequent edits, are freely available on the chain.
However, as a stake holder, there exists the absolute right to use your stake to disagree with rewards on a post.
Reasons are nice, and find support in the crowd, but not required.
If you take the time to monitor the community discords you will see what has to be endured to keep the bots from spamming and dumping hive to zero.
When fraudsters post they take rewards from people trying to be real with us.
As a stakeholder, it is duty to pushback on the fraudulent schemes dreamed up by those that want to cheat the system.
If you are not flagging content, and hold stake, you are cutting your own throat.
I didn't like dan's leaving much at the time, but now 5+ years later, I'm glad he is gone because he is missing key points in his search to find the grail of perfect governance.
We don't want any musks coming in and mussing up the place, either.
Anybody actively voting with more than 1000mv is an enemy of every redfish trying to make it here.
When whales vote redfish get pushed below the dust cutoff and get no rewards at all.
@dlmmqb
If I couldn't accept that downvotes may be healthy for the ecosystem, I would spend time on another chain without them. There are plenty. It is anti-free speech though. Many posts are obfuscated through downvoting and the coercion of shilling is another murky area. Regardless of what is correct or not, what is being proposed is not in alignment with what Musk is seeking. People just want Hive to be an end all be all to everyone's problems without actually listening to the person on the other side. It's a lost cause and if this hackneyed mob can't bring Larimer into the fold, they will never reach Musk. Its just a simple fact.
Consider what free speech means by the types of people the ACLU represent. Its meaning is different than the rainbow farting unicorn representation that people have diluted it to sound like.
What is anti-free speech is only voting things you agree with.
Unless you vote things that upset your apple cart, you aren't a free speech supporter, you are an agreeable speech supporter.
This is one of the points missed by larimer, and nearly all of the curation gangs.
Dissent is essential to finding the truth, ergo, free speech supporters vote things that make them angry.
Things that diametrically oppose the very fiber of their being.
Absent this type of speech all you have is an echo chamber.