I scrolled down all the way on @davidpakman's profile from early 2022 to mid 2021.
Not a single downvote from me and hey, would you look at this:
Maybe you should take it up with @broncnutz why he was so bent on downvoting him to 0 constantly for what looks like half a year. If my assumption is correct that it's based on political opinions rather than content/effort/value to the platform, then I disagree with that the same way you might be. Downvotes/adjustment shouldn't occur based on opinionated disagreement of other things than the value the author may bring to hive. Even if you think they bring close to 0 value like broncnutz maybe thinks, I wouldn't personally 0 out rewards with very few exceptions over the 8 years I've been here.
So please direct your complaints somewhere else from now on, thanks.
I appreciate your diligence and factual reporting regarding Pakman's Hive presence. I strongly agree with the statement you make here that DV's should not apply for differences of opinion. However, I am attempting to make the case that DV's should not apply for any reason that isn't actually spam, scams, or plagiarism - or any similar crimes that aren't merely disapproval of how folks post content.
My understanding is that OCD has undertaken such campaigns in the past, so I addressed this with you. If I am mistaken, as your above statement strongly suggests, then I apologize that the tenor of my remarks and direct claims suggested you were responsible for such campaigns. I did not follow or support Pakman, when he was here nor before that or since, because I am not in agreement with his political views. It was just the first name that came to mind, and that is the only reason he came up.
However, I have undertaken to support accounts that are today serially DV'd to zero by donating 25% of my author rewards to those users, some of whom I have not agreed with at all, or only occasionally, because Hive needs free speech. I know you are an active curator and have undertaken to provide you reason to support even folks you disagree with if they are being DV'd, and to not DV anyone for any reason other than spam, scams, and plagiarism.
Thank you for your considered responses, supporting your statements with probative evidence, and your generous time.
I respect your decision in sharing your rewards with those being what you deem to be unfairly downvoted. That said I don't personally agree that downvotes should only be used for the things you mentioned, downvote mana exists for many reasons, you can see some stakeholders using it in a healthy way on trending often (for example @smooth). He adjusts the rewards a tiny bit, even if just symbolic when he believes posts are overrewarded.
I'd argue that's healthy and people should get used to some downvotes as long as it doesn't escalate to drama and retaliation, etc. I also appreciate some who try to reason their decision to downvote certain posts, for instance based on the value they believe that content or author is bringing to the ecosystem and others seeing the reason and where a post lands in pending rewards can then decide to increase or also decrease the rewards further.
What I don't like is when people take it personally and start acting out based on it and take it too far. It usually makes both parties look bad and the platform in general. There's still a long way to go but I fully believe an ecosystem like ours needs both upvotes and downvotes as without the other they can be abused on their own.
All sorts of philosophical attempts to change human nature have done the same, and failed equally. Hive user retention is demonstrably abysmal, and this is why. Hive utterly fails to enable folks to get paid for their content because economic suppression of the subjective valuation of society of that content is censorship, and this mistaken philosophical attempt to change human nature simply fails to meet human needs.
Hive's premise is that creators can be rewarded for their content by peers. DV's, and particularly DV campaigns that zero out returns permanently - which continue today on Hive - utterly belie that premise. It is hardly conspiratorial to note that 3 dozen accounts have maintained a majority of Hive stake for seven years and oligarchical centralization of governance is the result of 'adjusting rewards', which is simply punitive taxation and censorship that drives people off the platform.
It doesn't matter how convincing you sound, how reasonable and logical your arguments seem to you. The market has rejected them, and until that BS is abandoned Hive will remain financially centralized and fail to enable free speech that has never been more desperately necessary as censorship eliminates free speech across the West.
The fact is that upvotes and no votes are opposites. Curation is the opposite of no curation. DV's are identical to taxation in effect. They produce identical results commercially, utterly repressing economic activity, preventing growth, and centralizing assets. Enabling unrestrained taxation by any and every party on Hive completely and for absolutely sound reasons cripples the social media mechanism and obliterates forthright speech.
These are the demonstrable results Hive has achieved in seven years of operations, and refusing to adapt operations to market responses is the quickest route to the end of Hive.