So, other than @fulltimegeek and @joe.public, what other valiant defense of the blockchain has the #irredeemables list been used for? I may be nescient, but am open to learnin'.
I note that his account, at least, is no longer on that list, but he refrains from discussing that event. Perhaps you could shed some light on how that appeal was approved.
You might also share what crimes @joe.public committed that were so dire he has to be completely censored on Hive. I suspect he just annoyed you and Bernie, and that's all it takes.
I'm surprised I'm not on the list yet.
I'm certain your finger is poised to drop the hammer right now.
I strongly advise you offer the Hive community the ability to vote on HPS proposals to approve or deny such a terrible fate as to be completely censored, before that power degrades your morals.
You may prefer not being responsible when you consider what that power wielded by you alone might cause to innocent folks if used improperly - as you have by placing @joe.public on the #irredeemables list, or keeping him on it when you have the power to remove him from it.
That list is anathema to censorship resistance, decentralization, truth, justice, and the American way, and you alone presently bear responsibility for that foul device.
It's like being boss of the dungeon back during the Inquisition. Stop using censorship to keep people from merely saying things you don't like.
If the #irredeemables list has been used to do anything other than censor folks that annoyed you and Bernie, do tell. I haven't seen it.
The list of nearly 300 accounts here are on the irredeemable list, and I would call that a great use for it.
FTG spent a bunch of steem to upvote a post with a single link (or something like that), and themarkymark removed the vote. FTG wanted his money back, but whether he knew it or not, buildawhale had a no refund policy for people upvoting spam, and to prove it wasn't about the money, he sent it to null instead of refunding it. Then FTG went to commenting thousands of times per hour with multiple accounts, basically crippling people's ability to view some posts because the comment section would crash the page. That's why his accounts were put on the list.
I have no idea what joe.public did, and perhaps it deserves a fair shake in the court of public opinion, but from everything I've personally witnessed, the list has been used well. And the front-end devs (peakd, hive.blog, 3speak, esteem) seem to agree, as they are not required to use it, and can display any or all of it if they so choose.
I was in fact uninformed as to the necessity of the list when I made that comment. I have been learnin' as I go, as is my wont, and have come to agree that the list is necessary.
However, I still don't think @joe.public belonged on it, and I am happy to read just today that he no longer is. I also want to mention here that I have, as in the comment you are replying to, severely tested @themarkymark to prove he is not intent on opinion flagging.
Despite my incivility, he has not flagged me. I am presently convinced he believes, with good evidence, at least as far as I am concerned, that he is not opinion flagging, nor abuses his censorship power.
Despite these facts, this censorship power is too severe, and too seductive, to leave in the hands of one person, or even the four that seem to have been involved at one time. That is centralization of that censorship power, and is the opposite of decentralized censorship resistance, no matter the quality of the moral fiber of the individual bearing that weight alone. The moral hazard, as I mention above, is simply too onerous a burden to bear.
It was necessary that changes be undertaken, and I have briefly glanced at things today that reveal changes have been made. I still think an HPS vote is the appropriate level of control on Hive over who gets on that list, because it is essentially the end of any ability to post or comment on Hive, the equivalent of banishment, and that for stakehodlers.
Regardless of my tendency to produce these walls of text, I appreciate your informative and substantive comment, much of which I have learned is factually correct.
Despite these facts, this censorship power is too severe, and too seductive, to leave in the hands of one person, or even the four that seem to have been involved at one time. That is centralization of that censorship power, and is the opposite of decentralized censorship resistance, no matter the quality of the moral fiber of the individual bearing that weight alone. The moral hazard, as I mention above, is simply too onerous a burden to bear.
But it's not just one person involved. I can go make my own list, develop an API, and put people on there I don't like. It's up to others to either use it if they find it useful, or discard it if they see no value.
It may be one person making the list, but it's up to others running services to decide whether or not to use it, which creates accountability. As soon as it is perceived to be using for abuse, the front ends would stop using it, or maybe only grab a few names from there for their own list. It is up to the list creator to make an honest list which is valuable to the community, or else all their effort can be ignored overnight.
You are a prince among men, and I and the vast majority of ordinary meat puppets are incapable of developing an API.
While things have indeed been changed (in ways I have not yet given time to understand) if the choice is between eliminating massive onslaughts of spam and a few annoying people, or suffering that devastating spam, front ends have had little practical choice.
Might as well ask me to build a moon rocket and see the Apollo astronaut's tracks on the Moon for myself to prove the Moon landing wasn't faked.
My concern has been addressed by folks with the skills and means to address it, and other than @joe.public no longer being totally censored, I have not yet ascertained how, and whether or not what has been done exceeds my hopes, meets them, or yet leaves me concerned the community remains vulnerable to being selectively silenced without meaningful recourse. I have learned a great deal from broaching this issue with @themarkymark, and at least know now I owe him both an apology for my inaccurate statements (partly undertaken already), and thanks for enabling me to better understand, as well as doing Yoeman's duty to prevent spam from causing every user on the network to suffer.
I shall have to wrap my head around new information, and new understanding, before I can determine how to proceed. One thing I can promise is that I won't be developing an API myself, because my programming skills are limited to one course in BASIC I took in 1980 that is almost a complete blank, and formerly (prior to CSS) being able to write HTML in notepad and create websites on the fly.
I don't have the skills, and neither do most people.
Buying votes removes the proof of brain consensus. Marky was one of the few that actually cared about the quality of posts his bot voted on, and removed votes for low effort/spam posts voted by buildawhale.
I am also under no illusions that Marky is perfect, and out of the thousands of accounts blacklisted, I'm sure there were some that weren't as worthy as others. What I do know is if I were to get blacklisted, spamming obscenities and threats wouldn't be the path I would personally choose to get the matter resolved (not saying you did this, but I've seen it happen over and over). Reasonable people are more likely to be met with reason, and emotional people are more likely to be met with more emotion.
"I strongly advise you offer the Hive community the ability to vote on HPS proposals to approve or deny such a terrible fate as to be completely censored, before that power degrades your morals."
I like that idea, but it seems like it might just lead to large stakeholders who vote wielding censorship instead.
"That list is anathema to censorship resistance, decentralization, truth, justice, and the American way, and you alone presently bear responsibility for that foul device."
I'm with you on censorship resistance, but I'm not sure how it's meant to effect decentralization.
Abstract truth is just as insubstantial as justice to me, and the American way only conjures contempt and scorn in my mind.
Truth, justice, and the American way is a formulaic aphorism I associate with my youthful naivete. It's unlikely to be familiar to folks not raised here.
Anathema is the enemy of. The #irredeemables list is the enemy of decentralization by enabling centralized control of speech. It could hardly be more centralized than being limited to one individual to undertake at their sole option.
As to HPS voting on censorship, it's at least a public process, which is better than what we have now, which is done in secret, in darkness, where none know it has been done, except them it has been done to. It would require action to be taken by those with substantial stake to effect censoring, which would reduce it.
Absent sound reasons presented to support the censorship, as seem not to exist in the case of @joe.public, it is likely that those voting in support of censoring accounts would also be held to account for doing so. This would reduce it as well.
I'm familiar with the concept of anathema. Interesting that you would invoke such religious vernacular, though secularized as I presume it is intended. I'd imagine that's a consequence of your strong conviction.
I see what you're saying now about the threat to decentralization.
With me being very computer technology oriented, the first thing that comes to mind in terms of decentralization is decentralized network architecture.
I'm not so sure HPS voting would reduce instances of censorship though. It seems to me that it would open the process up to anyone who could manage to promote a proposal. If anything I would expect there to be far more pushes for censorship, since many more than just @themarkymark could get the ball rolling for whatever reason.
Still I suppose it would take longer to enact each individual proposal. While I think that might largely be beneficial for careful choice, it would give spammers and abusers until finalization of voting to continue their campaigns with full visibility and impact.
I'd also say that to some limited extent @themarkymark is held to account for these actions. I'm sure he notices the opposition's rhetoric, and it likely moves the needle in terms of public opinion to some degree. I don't know of much more than that which could be done by HPS.
" It seems to me that it would open the process up to anyone who could manage to promote a proposal."
That is fine. HPS requires successful proposals to exceed the return proposal. Unless substantial yes votes are provided, HPS proposals automatically fail. This means that such spurious or troll proposals can just be ignored until they go away.
"Every abstention is a vote against HPS proposals."
Neat. That sounds like something I want.
How are the votes counted? I thought it was stake-weighted, so could you not just buy it essentially? If you can vote hard enough you could possibly get it through I mean. Unless you can't vote on your own, but you could still just delegate or transfer to an alt.
I'm going to go learn more about the mechanics of the proposal system.
The votes are essentially the same as witness votes as I understand it, and therefore are indeed stake-weighted.
To be successful, an HPS proposal must get more votes, more stake weighting, than the return proposal, which has substantial weight (>20M HP IIRC). Therefore proposals that do not receive substantial weight of stake do not succeed.
What I do not understand is how to make an HPS proposal. If I did, I would make one to require an HPS proposal to add a Hive account to the #irredeemables list (or the equivalent Hive is now using, if different), and to require all the accounts on it now to be voted on the same way.
This would amount to an appeal process for users presently being totally silenced by @themarkymark and the merry censors now. If good evidence of malfeasance by those accounts exists, then folks will vote to leave them on the list.
If not, they don't belong on it.
@roadscape, @drakos, and @redbeard should join @themarkymark in presenting exactly that HPS proposal, and stop censoring people covertly. Hive needs to be censorship resistant, and presently it effects censorship just as secretly as Sun Yuchen does on Steem.
Not a good look guys, and worse yet, a slippery slope to the same shitshow Steem has become, and exactly why people come here in the first place: the utter destruction of freedom of speech on legacy centralized platforms.
How do you guys expect Hive to be any different if you do the same exact things in the same exact ways as those you want to be different from?
the list is public, you can view it. There is a guy who spans dick pics you might be interested in.
I'll add fulltimegeek was never added, only the accounts that spammed. If your theory was true he would have been added as well. He was never even on the blacklist. In fact, you would have been on it ages ago if that was true.
I know for a fact that @fulltimegeek was on that list, because I saw his account on it. I know for a fact he personally posted a copious quantity of spam, at least matched by Bernie.
I have never spammed anyone. Ever.
I am disagreeable, on that I agree.
I do not know if you simply miss-recall or if you are deliberately misstating facts, but @fulltimegeek was on that list.
Bernie, on the other hand, kept spamming for a long time after that, which is why you have @joe.public on that list now, because he responded to that spam.
Answering comments isn't spam unless the original comments are spam, and Bernie isn't on the list, so you must reckon his comments weren't spam. All the more ridiculous you consider replies to it to have been spam.
Get @joe.public off that list, or continue to reveal the danger of censorship without community control to everyone that posts on Hive.
Your censorship may be the most dangerous threat to the Hive community extant. Put that power in public control and cease being a threat of centralized censorship to this community.
It is exactly the same threat Sun Yuchen was to Steem, except his view of governance and censorship differed from yours. It's the identical threat, for different reasons.
I know for a fact that @fulltimegeek was on that list, because I saw his account on it. I know for a fact he personally posted a copious quantity of spam, at least matched by Bernie.
Well as usual, you are full of shit. The entire blacklist is available on Github with versions, history, and is searchable.
That is the list I referred to. While you should rescind your unkind comments about me due to their inaccuracy, I don't care if you do or not. Your comments are about you.
My comments reveal me. I have spoken factually and accurately regarding this issue. I have refrained from ad hominems. You have made false claims, misstated facts, and personally maligned me.
If I were you, you'd be on the list by now.
This is the harm undertaking solitary power to censor people is doing to you. I strongly urge you to stop harming yourself psychologically by keeping this power your personal fief. Do the right thing and enable a public vote on #irredeemables list inclusion.
Do it for your own safety and health, if not to protect Hive from censorship.
Welp, I can't prove it, and he ain't tellin'. His accounts are the entirety of the list at it's inception, save for one account of Bernie's, which means I misspoke when I said Bernie was never sanctioned.
For my mistake I apologize.
I still think @fulltimegeek account was on that list, or some other mechanism prevented his posting and commenting of which I am unaware. Your coyness with factual information at your disposal does you no credit, and strongly discounts your veracity.
Stop.Censoring.People.Because.Of.Their.Opinions.
Get @joe.public off that list. He's no spammer, and censoring him does no good to Hive. In fact, it does the opposite, and degrades strongly any claim it can make to censorship resistance, and that at your hands.
So, other than @fulltimegeek and @joe.public, what other valiant defense of the blockchain has the #irredeemables list been used for? I may be nescient, but am open to learnin'.
I recall the inception of the #irredeemables list was your doing. You sent a 60 Steem refund due @fulltimegeek to @null and sent him a pic. A disagreement ensued between @fulltimegeek and @berniesanders that ended when @fulltimegeek was completely censored by the #irredeemables list.
I note that his account, at least, is no longer on that list, but he refrains from discussing that event. Perhaps you could shed some light on how that appeal was approved.
You might also share what crimes @joe.public committed that were so dire he has to be completely censored on Hive. I suspect he just annoyed you and Bernie, and that's all it takes.
I'm surprised I'm not on the list yet.
I'm certain your finger is poised to drop the hammer right now.
I strongly advise you offer the Hive community the ability to vote on HPS proposals to approve or deny such a terrible fate as to be completely censored, before that power degrades your morals.
You may prefer not being responsible when you consider what that power wielded by you alone might cause to innocent folks if used improperly - as you have by placing @joe.public on the #irredeemables list, or keeping him on it when you have the power to remove him from it.
That list is anathema to censorship resistance, decentralization, truth, justice, and the American way, and you alone presently bear responsibility for that foul device.
It's like being boss of the dungeon back during the Inquisition. Stop using censorship to keep people from merely saying things you don't like.
If the #irredeemables list has been used to do anything other than censor folks that annoyed you and Bernie, do tell. I haven't seen it.
The list of nearly 300 accounts here are on the irredeemable list, and I would call that a great use for it.
FTG spent a bunch of steem to upvote a post with a single link (or something like that), and themarkymark removed the vote. FTG wanted his money back, but whether he knew it or not, buildawhale had a no refund policy for people upvoting spam, and to prove it wasn't about the money, he sent it to null instead of refunding it. Then FTG went to commenting thousands of times per hour with multiple accounts, basically crippling people's ability to view some posts because the comment section would crash the page. That's why his accounts were put on the list.
I have no idea what joe.public did, and perhaps it deserves a fair shake in the court of public opinion, but from everything I've personally witnessed, the list has been used well. And the front-end devs (peakd, hive.blog, 3speak, esteem) seem to agree, as they are not required to use it, and can display any or all of it if they so choose.
I was in fact uninformed as to the necessity of the list when I made that comment. I have been learnin' as I go, as is my wont, and have come to agree that the list is necessary.
However, I still don't think @joe.public belonged on it, and I am happy to read just today that he no longer is. I also want to mention here that I have, as in the comment you are replying to, severely tested @themarkymark to prove he is not intent on opinion flagging.
Despite my incivility, he has not flagged me. I am presently convinced he believes, with good evidence, at least as far as I am concerned, that he is not opinion flagging, nor abuses his censorship power.
Despite these facts, this censorship power is too severe, and too seductive, to leave in the hands of one person, or even the four that seem to have been involved at one time. That is centralization of that censorship power, and is the opposite of decentralized censorship resistance, no matter the quality of the moral fiber of the individual bearing that weight alone. The moral hazard, as I mention above, is simply too onerous a burden to bear.
It was necessary that changes be undertaken, and I have briefly glanced at things today that reveal changes have been made. I still think an HPS vote is the appropriate level of control on Hive over who gets on that list, because it is essentially the end of any ability to post or comment on Hive, the equivalent of banishment, and that for stakehodlers.
Regardless of my tendency to produce these walls of text, I appreciate your informative and substantive comment, much of which I have learned is factually correct.
Thanks.
But it's not just one person involved. I can go make my own list, develop an API, and put people on there I don't like. It's up to others to either use it if they find it useful, or discard it if they see no value.
It may be one person making the list, but it's up to others running services to decide whether or not to use it, which creates accountability. As soon as it is perceived to be using for abuse, the front ends would stop using it, or maybe only grab a few names from there for their own list. It is up to the list creator to make an honest list which is valuable to the community, or else all their effort can be ignored overnight.
You are a prince among men, and I and the vast majority of ordinary meat puppets are incapable of developing an API.
While things have indeed been changed (in ways I have not yet given time to understand) if the choice is between eliminating massive onslaughts of spam and a few annoying people, or suffering that devastating spam, front ends have had little practical choice.
Might as well ask me to build a moon rocket and see the Apollo astronaut's tracks on the Moon for myself to prove the Moon landing wasn't faked.
My concern has been addressed by folks with the skills and means to address it, and other than @joe.public no longer being totally censored, I have not yet ascertained how, and whether or not what has been done exceeds my hopes, meets them, or yet leaves me concerned the community remains vulnerable to being selectively silenced without meaningful recourse. I have learned a great deal from broaching this issue with @themarkymark, and at least know now I owe him both an apology for my inaccurate statements (partly undertaken already), and thanks for enabling me to better understand, as well as doing Yoeman's duty to prevent spam from causing every user on the network to suffer.
I shall have to wrap my head around new information, and new understanding, before I can determine how to proceed. One thing I can promise is that I won't be developing an API myself, because my programming skills are limited to one course in BASIC I took in 1980 that is almost a complete blank, and formerly (prior to CSS) being able to write HTML in notepad and create websites on the fly.
I don't have the skills, and neither do most people.
Buying votes removes the proof of brain consensus. Marky was one of the few that actually cared about the quality of posts his bot voted on, and removed votes for low effort/spam posts voted by buildawhale.
I am also under no illusions that Marky is perfect, and out of the thousands of accounts blacklisted, I'm sure there were some that weren't as worthy as others. What I do know is if I were to get blacklisted, spamming obscenities and threats wouldn't be the path I would personally choose to get the matter resolved (not saying you did this, but I've seen it happen over and over). Reasonable people are more likely to be met with reason, and emotional people are more likely to be met with more emotion.
Whose steem got burned?
"I strongly advise you offer the Hive community the ability to vote on HPS proposals to approve or deny such a terrible fate as to be completely censored, before that power degrades your morals."
I like that idea, but it seems like it might just lead to large stakeholders who vote wielding censorship instead.
"That list is anathema to censorship resistance, decentralization, truth, justice, and the American way, and you alone presently bear responsibility for that foul device."
I'm with you on censorship resistance, but I'm not sure how it's meant to effect decentralization.
Abstract truth is just as insubstantial as justice to me, and the American way only conjures contempt and scorn in my mind.
Truth, justice, and the American way is a formulaic aphorism I associate with my youthful naivete. It's unlikely to be familiar to folks not raised here.
Anathema is the enemy of. The #irredeemables list is the enemy of decentralization by enabling centralized control of speech. It could hardly be more centralized than being limited to one individual to undertake at their sole option.
As to HPS voting on censorship, it's at least a public process, which is better than what we have now, which is done in secret, in darkness, where none know it has been done, except them it has been done to. It would require action to be taken by those with substantial stake to effect censoring, which would reduce it.
Absent sound reasons presented to support the censorship, as seem not to exist in the case of @joe.public, it is likely that those voting in support of censoring accounts would also be held to account for doing so. This would reduce it as well.
It ain't perfect, but it's DPoS we got.
I'm familiar with the concept of anathema. Interesting that you would invoke such religious vernacular, though secularized as I presume it is intended. I'd imagine that's a consequence of your strong conviction.
I see what you're saying now about the threat to decentralization.
With me being very computer technology oriented, the first thing that comes to mind in terms of decentralization is decentralized network architecture.
I'm not so sure HPS voting would reduce instances of censorship though. It seems to me that it would open the process up to anyone who could manage to promote a proposal. If anything I would expect there to be far more pushes for censorship, since many more than just @themarkymark could get the ball rolling for whatever reason.
Still I suppose it would take longer to enact each individual proposal. While I think that might largely be beneficial for careful choice, it would give spammers and abusers until finalization of voting to continue their campaigns with full visibility and impact.
I'd also say that to some limited extent @themarkymark is held to account for these actions. I'm sure he notices the opposition's rhetoric, and it likely moves the needle in terms of public opinion to some degree. I don't know of much more than that which could be done by HPS.
That's my fiftieth of a dollar on the matter.
That is fine. HPS requires successful proposals to exceed the return proposal. Unless substantial yes votes are provided, HPS proposals automatically fail. This means that such spurious or troll proposals can just be ignored until they go away.
Every abstention is a vote against HPS proposals.
"Every abstention is a vote against HPS proposals."
Neat. That sounds like something I want.
How are the votes counted? I thought it was stake-weighted, so could you not just buy it essentially? If you can vote hard enough you could possibly get it through I mean. Unless you can't vote on your own, but you could still just delegate or transfer to an alt.
I'm going to go learn more about the mechanics of the proposal system.
The votes are essentially the same as witness votes as I understand it, and therefore are indeed stake-weighted.
To be successful, an HPS proposal must get more votes, more stake weighting, than the return proposal, which has substantial weight (>20M HP IIRC). Therefore proposals that do not receive substantial weight of stake do not succeed.
What I do not understand is how to make an HPS proposal. If I did, I would make one to require an HPS proposal to add a Hive account to the #irredeemables list (or the equivalent Hive is now using, if different), and to require all the accounts on it now to be voted on the same way.
This would amount to an appeal process for users presently being totally silenced by @themarkymark and the merry censors now. If good evidence of malfeasance by those accounts exists, then folks will vote to leave them on the list.
If not, they don't belong on it.
@roadscape, @drakos, and @redbeard should join @themarkymark in presenting exactly that HPS proposal, and stop censoring people covertly. Hive needs to be censorship resistant, and presently it effects censorship just as secretly as Sun Yuchen does on Steem.
Not a good look guys, and worse yet, a slippery slope to the same shitshow Steem has become, and exactly why people come here in the first place: the utter destruction of freedom of speech on legacy centralized platforms.
How do you guys expect Hive to be any different if you do the same exact things in the same exact ways as those you want to be different from?
the list is public, you can view it. There is a guy who spans dick pics you might be interested in.
I'll add fulltimegeek was never added, only the accounts that spammed. If your theory was true he would have been added as well. He was never even on the blacklist. In fact, you would have been on it ages ago if that was true.
So did @joe.public just spam, that's what got him on the list?
Another thing, why do these blacklists need to be so deeply embedded in the architecture?
These spams and such will make it onto the blockchain anyway, right? Why not just serve up the whole thing and let the frontend pick and choose?
Ideally then the end-user could even manage their personal blacklist.
Is it because node operators don't want to serve shady content or what?
I'm not accusing you of anything.
I remember iflagtrash, that was definitely spam.
I personally am pro normalizing flags/downvotes. Just seems like the opposite of a vote to me.
"I could tell you more"
I'm listening.
@themarkymark says you libeled him or whatever. Is this just a nepotism battle or what?
It does kind of sound like collusion between bernie and him the way you and others tell it.
He seems to me curiously tight lipped about the whole thing. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.
I know for a fact that @fulltimegeek was on that list, because I saw his account on it. I know for a fact he personally posted a copious quantity of spam, at least matched by Bernie.
I have never spammed anyone. Ever.
I am disagreeable, on that I agree.
I do not know if you simply miss-recall or if you are deliberately misstating facts, but @fulltimegeek was on that list.
Bernie, on the other hand, kept spamming for a long time after that, which is why you have @joe.public on that list now, because he responded to that spam.
Answering comments isn't spam unless the original comments are spam, and Bernie isn't on the list, so you must reckon his comments weren't spam. All the more ridiculous you consider replies to it to have been spam.
Get @joe.public off that list, or continue to reveal the danger of censorship without community control to everyone that posts on Hive.
Your censorship may be the most dangerous threat to the Hive community extant. Put that power in public control and cease being a threat of centralized censorship to this community.
It is exactly the same threat Sun Yuchen was to Steem, except his view of governance and censorship differed from yours. It's the identical threat, for different reasons.
Well as usual, you are full of shit. The entire blacklist is available on Github with versions, history, and is searchable.
https://github.com/themarkymark-steem/buildawhaleblacklist
He was never on the list. So quit your bullshit and go play somewhere else.
That is not the #irredeemables list.
That is the list I referred to. While you should rescind your unkind comments about me due to their inaccuracy, I don't care if you do or not. Your comments are about you.
My comments reveal me. I have spoken factually and accurately regarding this issue. I have refrained from ad hominems. You have made false claims, misstated facts, and personally maligned me.
If I were you, you'd be on the list by now.
This is the harm undertaking solitary power to censor people is doing to you. I strongly urge you to stop harming yourself psychologically by keeping this power your personal fief. Do the right thing and enable a public vote on #irredeemables list inclusion.
Do it for your own safety and health, if not to protect Hive from censorship.
He was never on that either.
Welp, I can't prove it, and he ain't tellin'. His accounts are the entirety of the list at it's inception, save for one account of Bernie's, which means I misspoke when I said Bernie was never sanctioned.
For my mistake I apologize.
I still think @fulltimegeek account was on that list, or some other mechanism prevented his posting and commenting of which I am unaware. Your coyness with factual information at your disposal does you no credit, and strongly discounts your veracity.
Stop.Censoring.People.Because.Of.Their.Opinions.
Get @joe.public off that list. He's no spammer, and censoring him does no good to Hive. In fact, it does the opposite, and degrades strongly any claim it can make to censorship resistance, and that at your hands.