What part of the word "abuse" did you not understand? Steemit is flawed, it's that simple. Until Steemit is cleaned up and returned to it's original design and intent, it will never get better. Getting rid of rogue witnesses would be a good start!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steemit's (the website) original design was a mess. Didn't have wallet pages, didn't have a lot of things. Though there was something in the original design that unfortunately has been changed. A downvote was called a downvote, not erroneously called a flag.
If you mean Steem's original design, it originally was designed and intended to have downvotes.
What I mean about Steemit's original intent was to be an uncensored blogging platform, not a runaway social network nightmare filled with bots and bullies, where B.S. earns more than thoughtful, creative content. That is what it has become unfortunately. There is nothing wrong with flagging inappropriate comment or hate speech, or anything that would be considered destructive to the platform, but certain (too many) individuals flag for the fun of it, or because it makes them feel bigger than they really are I suppose. Don't want it, don't need it, and am moving on when my power down is complete.
On Steem, I can't do much of anything to censor or remove a post made by you even 30 minutes ago. I can't downvote it and make it go away from the Steem blockhain. What a downvote does is reduce a post's rewards or its potential rewards.
It also can reduce an account's reputation score, but even accounts with negative reputation score aren't censored from the blockchain. It's a non-consensus attribute. Front ends don't need to display its effects at all, if they choose not to.
So how is it that the original intent of Steem* is not being lived up to? And why, if you equate downvoting with censorship, do you think there is nothing wrong with downvoting "inappropriate comment or hate speech" when you are implying that you'd prefer to use an uncensored platform?
*The original intent of Steemit, the website front end, was to be a Reddit-alike (not just blogging) reference example. It can and does censor posts in the form of DMCA takedown requests. Please understand the terms you're using and use them more precisely.
I fully understand what you think that I don't and I'm not entirely convinced that Steemit data is stored on the BC. I know certainly that images and video are stored on IPFS and it's likely that data is being stored on Amazon's S3 storage, and if that is true, Steemit data is not stored on distributed storage and is controlled by a single entity. That's is not my argument though. I'm not saying the the flag has no legitimate justification for its existence. I equate "decentralization" to "unsensored," and like many others, never would expect downvoting to identify with censorship. My issue is with the abusive nature of it all. Downvoting can and should be appropriately used as a tool to identify wrongdoing, not to hide or punish personal opinion, or "censure" someone because of personality conflicts. That abuse in itself equates to restraint of opinion, which in effect is a form of censorship. Furthermore, illegal or illicit actions by others on the platform are legal issues and should never be handled by the membership. It is the responsibility of everyone on Steemit who has been witness to a crime to inform law enforcement. It is not the responsibility of members to be police, judge and executioner. I've read the Whitepaper and Steemit was not intended to be a battleground for trolls and malcontents. What is severly lacking on this platform is leadership, and without leaders all you have are followers. Oh, and for what it is worth, hypocrite @berniesanders should be along shortly to downvote you and I for self-upvote abuse!