First post of yours I’ve agreed with in awhile...
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.
People always seem to forget that part...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
First post of yours I’ve agreed with in awhile...
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.
People always seem to forget that part...
Freedom of speech on 4chan also guarantees freedom of consequences...
The people who don't like it here should go there I think.
you have any idea how many content creators bernie has chased away for holding unique ideas that conflict with his agenda?
how often i found posts with 400+ upvotes and $0 profit because of bernie and friends. how does that make sense? who is he to outvote 400 people? just because he has bots and abuses the delegates he has (along with all the steem 'earned' by having multiple accounts)?
it isn't about consequences.. but freedom of ideas.
100% agree, freedom of speech just means the government wont throw you in jail for the things you say. You can still say whatever you want but that doesn't mean there wont be consequences.
Hello my dear #fingolfin , "Buck" is expressed through the sound. This is the usual rule. People used to be respected and hated. If there was a tax on the use of speech, there would have been no quarrel between the two. I do not know if the government will take prisoner in speech. But in 1952, the then East Pakistan government (now Bangladesh) killed people in the capital Dhaka in a procession demanding free speech application. 21st February International "Mother Language Day" Thanks God and all .
That made absolutely no sense...
Thanks
freedom of speech was built up from greek politics where "freedom of speech was the right to public forum for debate
downvoting( flagging) to hide from the mainly used potarl or selectively hiding(shadowbanning) is contrary to this and impedes on basic human rights actually multiple when you include spite downvoting impeding Workers’ Rights + The Right to Democracy + Freedom of Expression + Freedom of Thought
what they say is only correct in regards to the first amendment not basic human rights it is lost on the actions of hiding posts from view with downvoting without the cause being abuse
much like if you were to shoot someone
or
which is moral? which is immoral?
I'm reading your comment just fine using Steemit
Exactly.
Inexactly
I'm seeing your comment. That's all there is to it. Arguing without logic is the same as trolling...
its not actually its perception that matters its what manipulators thrive on hence slander through impostor accounts spite spam flagging etc
if it doesn't matter if comments are 'visible', why would people flag on non-monetary disagreement post?
flags are saying this is trash, non-contributing comment.. off topic...
seems as i follow bernie around all i see is flagged shit complaining about his flagging shit...
and as someone that has felt his wrath.. i know it is being done.
the community is not better for his presence.
Actually, people seem to have a big misunderstanding of what “downvotes” are designed for.
This is a reward based platform and downvotes are a way to regulate those rewards, using ones stake.
Trolling is a valid reason to receive a downvote, so is disagreement with rewards received. Downvotes can also be used as a way to help fight plagiarism as well as fight reward “farming.” Each can use theirs the way they see fit and by downvoting something, it’s returning those rewards to the pool to be distributed to everyone else.
Unfortunately they are not used responsibly by most and then others seem to rage when they receive one.. so yeah, things could be better.
There is also this mute button that works to not “see” people, as well as not visiting their blog. Plus, the upcoming communities feature should help with this quite a bit.
Haha. Let's take a good look at this logic so it is clear why it is stupid:
You're interpreting the list in a way that "if you want to be an internet troll, then you should downvote and that is acceptable."
So let's replace this reason with something else from the list. "If you want to be a plagiarizer, then you should downvote and that is acceptable." See? That's stupid.
Now let me guess: "but this is how I see it." No, it's selfish abuse. By logic, taking a personal interpretation and turning it into "the only thing that is true" defaults to being an asshole. If you enforce it, it's tyranny. That's all there is to it.
"But it's my stake and I can be a tyrant in any way I want!" Well, that's a whole different story. And yes. We understand you can.
I’m not even sure who you are talking to, the English words up there that I wrote state that trolling was a valid reason to receive a downvote or flag.
As in, if you are an internet troll.. someone is fully within their rights (per the whole idea behind the downvote feature) to use their downvotes (and stake) on you.
It seems you and @klevn both took that as me saying it meant trolling is what you should do? 🤔 I’d apologize for any confusion, but I don’t see how there was any.
trolling is not a valid use for it.
seems to be very clearly saying to flag trolls.. not be a troll.
Well you can't drive him away either in a system like this, so just avoid him or go back to systems where admins do have ultimate control on who gets seen or not.
the amazing number of people chased away by this guy..
something should be done.
or else we are saying...
what he says is law.
because he makes it impossible for anyone to disagree.
What should be done? Just mute him and if he still flags you, that's his right as a stake holder in this decentralized system. Your content will still be visible which is better than in traditional platforms...
yes but not without an action different to every other one clearly in view
also
to an outsider observer who believes STEEM works as it is marketed would think a grayed out comment was some sort of abuse
Takes under a second and almost no effort to see your message. If you call that being censored, okay. If you feel abused, just create a new account and don't interact with bernie. It's that simple. System like this enables all kinds of people.
if you have to take an action to reveal it is not equally public as the rest
But it is not hidden and that's still important. Sure, it isn't the ideal solution, but it's still important nonetheless. It's a tool and like all tools, it can be abused. I agree with you to an extent, just not with all of it.
Slightly less, yes, we can agree there. But I wouldn't call it censorship either.
You could also easily build a frontend that treats all messages the same, flagged or not.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.
Where do we want the consequences to end, though?
Should business be allowed to discriminate based on political opinions? Should wanabe militias be allowed to arrange physical consequences to those when deviate too much from far-left politics? Should business be allowed to refuse service to clients who voted for the other candidate?
Where do we draw the line on speech is just half of equation, the consequence part is just as important...
Nice
However there is NO FREE SPEECH on PRIVATE PROPERTY!!! In the mean time, there is this post:
https://steemit.com/art/@knowledge-trust/make-it-your-idea