In before he calls you a cabal collaborator.
Many people may not know this, but you and I have disagreed on several occasions. But, that never escalates into problems.
I actually find @baah pretty funny a lot of times.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes, we are not as homogeneous as people like to portray us.
I think the problem comes in when folks get emotional about being told they are wrong.
Their cognitive dissonance sets in and they respond emotionally.
Which evokes an emotional response all around.
This is why I continue to ask people to join the conversations.
More viewpoints, better crowd sourcing.
He is a cabal collaborator, and I thanked him for it (maybe that's down further). I'd thank you for it if you weren't opinion flagging and were just flagging spam, scams, and plagiarism. @baah is pretty funny, but is the only account I've ever muted.
He's inexorable, God bless him.
I don't recall ever flagging @baah, though. No promises, as my recollections are vague, and getting vaguer as I age.
But, while I grant that @antisocialist has a point and things seem to have gotten better than they were, as some accounts that were being flagged hard have been let up on, and accounts that were inactive because they were flagged hard have come back, opinion flagging is as terrible a weakness as @ned's stake proved to be.
It could destroy Hive in the wrong hands, and I reckon it will unless ya'll prevent it.
I hope you're right, but I don't think that there's a lot of users that would simply keep posting if they were flagged so hard they could not gain rewards. You are more durable and intent on speaking the truth than most, as I am sure you know.
A well funded group determined to cancel wrongthink would be able to cancel most of those they targeted. While I think Hivewatchers are the former, I don't think they are truly focused on wrongthink, and sometimes just get pissed off at folks and take them out, instead of only acting on spam, scams, and plagiarism. Ideally they wouldn't act against mere insults, but there've been cases where verbal abuse rose to the level of criminal offense. IANAL, but such cases may have to be dealt with to protect Hive from legal jeopardy.
I think marky, as @antisocialist says, does as he chooses a lot, and doesn't necessarily seek consensus. The problem isn't with marky, but with the code that enables opinion flagging because that potentiates a group dedicated to actual censorship to take people out.
My problem is that I cannot conceive of code that can potentiate censoring spam, scams, and plagiarism that doesn't enable censoring Democrats, Communists, or any particular flavor of political speech just as easily. Spam, scams, and plagiarism need to be flagged into the dust, and that ability only isn't toxic to free speech if those that wield it refuse to exercise their power against those they disagree with.
I can see no way to code that. We are left dependent on goodwill, which doesn't always work even when angels wield that power, and sure as hell won't work when devils have it.
Oh trust me, we have more in common than you think.
!lol
Does it matter why we love you, or just that we find a reason to do it?
We are all human and deserve respect.
When we forget that we lose what it is we are trying to be, decent human beings.
Hang in there, baah, we will get you visible again just as soon as you stop making large stake holders sooo upset.
I read it. It's extremely well written, but your definition of censorship is not shared by most, and much different than that given by authoritative sources. Censorship does not need to be systemic, nor total, so I disagree with that.
Anyway, you walk your talk, which is far more important IMHO.