I think how people use the site is everyone’s business as a community
If you don't like what someone is doing with their speech, then there is a mute button. If you feel that we have the right to dictate to others how they use their stake the other chains already have that feature, it's called flagging/downvoting.
I prefer freedom of speech and property rights being protected myself.
Speech I agree but the site already has some rules and technical aspects so changing them based on collective (not stake based) consensus to me seems inevitable as something grows and isn’t rly different to having existing settings. Like for example the fact one can self upvote is the same in essence as there being no option to self upvote, I don’t mind a site having its own rules, I just don’t like it being able to pick off specific ppl for personal reasons. Having the option to self vote / not self upvote isn’t removing freedom of speech or ability to earn like everyone else IMO. It simply still gives everyone on the site the same / equal rights as one another.
When the failed idea of democracy takes root, money flees so as not to allow the masses of poor strip their often hard earned wealth from them by consensus.
To any pondering this logically, those tow positions are glaringly diametrically opposed. Telling another what they can or can't do with their property is limiting their speech regardless of how you wish it weren't so.
We already have equal rights. What you propose is equal outcome which is a crime against nature and will once again see a withdrawal of those tasked with fulfilling others poorness until we all have equality in being poor. No logical person of wealth will agree to such a lopsided demand.
We all come here with an equal chance to deposit funds into our wallet, an equal chance to grow followers and grow our wallets.
It's not realistic to think we all start out of the gate equally. We weren't equal when we got here. An example of this would be this.
It would be ludicrous for me to think myself and Ctime were equal in our start here. He came with a much larger wallet than myself. We were not equal in our choices in life leading up to our arrival here. He is entitled to the rewards of his start here, as are we all. He owes me nothing because he got a better start than I did.
Equality in outcome is an emotional outlook that isn't grounded in reality and actually tears asunder any foundations those with more to contribute have built.
Communism other than on a voluntary bases destroys all in its path as those who create throw their hands up in the air and go home with their ball.
I would urge you to listen to this brilliant podcast from famigliacurione.
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@famigliacurione/the-blurtopian-experience-big-wallet-big-head
I don’t see it like that at all. Blurt already is a platform that has changed certain features since it’s brginning. Even in the beginning it mirrored the site but took away the downvote... essentially changing the platform to work more in alignment with what users wanted... no downvote button. If the majority of users also wanted no stake to be delegated to people with more stake that would essentially be the same.. tweaking the site to adapt to user preference. I’m not even saying what I would prefer but that I don’t believe the rules on a site make something discriminatory as long as they are applied across the board to everyone. I mean blurt alrwady has rules. It says one can’t plagerise etc. People know if they use blurt that’s a site rule, it doesn’t just discriminate individual people for their actions.
This decision was made before there were users, and it was done out of respect for property rights.
I know this much. If there comes a time where Blurt begins restricting or disrespecting property rights, I'll be leaving. That was the draw that made me decide to do this one more time. If that draw disappears, I will as well just as I did at Steem and Hive. I left Hive believing I was done with all of this, and was waiting with all of my Hive powered down in case the market went back up when I found out about Blurt. It took me much research to understand I would give this one more try.
You mention plagiarism, and that is different. That is a crime in most countries due to it not respecting property rights. I don't advocate for property rights theft, and it's perfectly understandable that in order to shield themselves from being participants in a crime the front ends disallow the action on their sites.
I’m not anti any site rules I’m anti discrimination.
Please explain to me how one using their stake as they wish is discrimination?
I would also point out that the word itself has a mostly negative connotation, which is absurd. One uses the ability to discriminate constantly, usually under the more approved wordage called preferences. We see this as one example in womans romance literature.
The man coveted is usually some musclebound guy who has a shitload of money. It's never the overweight mechanic down at the local car garage who is scraping by to make ends meet and has a shitty selection of clothes that aren't grease stained while paying two ex wives child support and alimony.
Maybe I’m not explaining how I mean. My point is that targeting for example upvu and saying upvu can’t do stuff with his stake is discrimination but adjusting the platform to say not be able to delegate to higher stake accounts isn’t personal descrimiation just making general site updates if a consensus thinks it would make the platform better. To me it’s very different to tell one person they can’t do something than it is to tweak a platform so that certain behaviours are not able to be done. That’s exactly for example what blurt did alrwady by mirroring the original platform but removing the downvote button. Not sure if I’m making sense here.
That merely expands the group being discriminated against to those of larger means though. The downvote button was also a tool of discrimination, only it worked in reverse. It allowed those of larger means to target those of lesser means.
The current model we have that respects all wallets and words regardless of size or topic is in my opinion the best we have. It simply is none of our business what one does with the holdings found within their wallet. If they wish to delegate it for profit and view Blurt as little more than an investment vehicle, I'm glad they are here and have helped add value to the project by powering up to have that stake to delegate.
I mean we differ a bit here because I don’t mind site rules as long as they are clear when I sign up to the site or the change is clear and allows me to use the site with those rules or not. Sometimes rules enable a better experience for users .. for example Charging ppl to post so there is less spam, charging people to comment, not allowing plagerism etc. I understand the reason for those rules and personally am happy to abide by them knowing all site users abide by them or they use a different site. However someone choosing an individual person and removing their right to post / earn etc to me is descrimination. I think we think a bit differently on this one.
I agree. Which is why I said if they begin stripping property rights that existed when I joined I'll be out of here as it no longer resembles the respect of property rights it held when I joined.
I'm not sure where you saw me advocating this.
I didn’t lol I think we have a bit of a communication miss match it might be me not explaining things right I don’t always find it the easiest to type. But what I’m saying is that I personally don’t mind site rules that feel in the benefit of the site as a whole and it’s users. If I don’t like them I’ll leave. What I don’t like is specific people being targeted or unable to earn / post etc etc
I don't mind rule changes that respect speech and property. I'm still unclear under the current system who or what is being targeted unfairly.
I mean the cost to post and the cost to post is a site change to prevent spam. Or should we just all be ok with spam and dick pics and porn? I mean I guess true decentralisation is it’s ok but blurt has changed its rules on it to accommodate.
There is no decentralization, as rycharde says the more accurate term would be one of dependencies.
I'm unsure of what the fees have to do with this topic on property rights.
Because it’s an almost direct comparison to the upvu situation. When most people joined there were no fees to pay for posting and commenting but because spam hit a crazy level and other chains tried to just over spam the site they added fees to the system to make it more enjoyable for users. Most ppl supported that move. Adding in something like ‘you can’t delegate to higher stake holders’ is also something that could make the site more enjoyable for those on it. Since upvu type services could become a big problem. Now I am just a small user expressing an opinion but in my opinion adding fees is no different to changing the platform to not be able to delegate to higher stake users.
My understanding (I had to wait for the chain to be fixed after the spam attack) is there were always fees, but there was a loophole allowing witnesses to post with no fees. That the attacker (I strongly suspect the Bernie account) used this loophole to spam with no fees his genitalia pictures using his bots to overwhelm the chain.