I’m not anti any site rules I’m anti discrimination.
RE: A BIG SHOUT OUT TO @MEGADRIVE!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A BIG SHOUT OUT TO @MEGADRIVE!
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
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 think this convo is about upvu right? And the bot voting service
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.