Short post on Shadow Banning.
I'll spit on your rules if it relinquishes my liberty.™
Welcome to my little corner. Dissent is always welcomed here.
Due to author rewards being zeroed out on last day of payout, by buildawhale account but really thanks to Hive's wannabe antihero, and for reasons unknown and silence on the matter, please instead use the gift 🎁 on peakd or donate liquid HIVE & or Liquid HBD here to make tips/donations.
Author Rewards are burned not your curation rewards.
The most vivid and most powerful dream your mind ever concocted to exist for you is the one your living in right now.
Your dreams are only just beginning when you wake up.
OFFICIAL POST HERE:
I will be contradicting my previous statements regarding this. And also an apology to those times when we didn't reach common ground before. Maybe there is second chances? You know who you are.
This is a small post on what I understand shadow censorship to be and what it could be used for.
Shadow banning
Is it censorship? Does the victim have to be aware for it to be called that?
In short, yes it is censorship.
And
According to Wikid-pedia it does have to be unaware, but I am not one to be dictated by what definitions are. As terms are only truly dictated in law books where meanings are very specific an unchanging, unlike in common layman conversations. With that said, we move on forward.
I say the user doesn't have to be unaware of what happened, because once it gets discovered, we still recognize it for what it is. Our understanding of its happening or not doesn't effect what it is.
Wikipedia states: (bolded texts done by me)
Shadow banning is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas(meaning it doesn't have to be on every front end) of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm. For example, shadow-banned comments posted to a blog or media website would be visible to the sender, but not to other users accessing the site.
Another example of an individual shadow banning, on dpos is with the down vote function. On peakd.com for example, which is "one area" of hive in general, is that comments (the public arena) can be hidden if enough stake weight is added to hide the content. You may have seen such examples already. For the most part, as far I could tell, it is strictly because of spam and sometimes some known scammer, abuse for short.
The act of shadow banning is to restrict certain content. For whatever reason it may be, it is censorship. Which there are various methods of doing so. That is the root of it. To censor. Which is why shadow banning is a FORM of censorship. As in, one of the ways to do so. Calling it a form of doesn't take away the fact of what it is. Censorship, even if it is subtle and discreet, is mischievous and dirty if done for the wrong reasons.
So no, I am not entirely against it. I think it serves well to censor real harmful content. I don't mean really harmful. I mean actually harmful data that could and does inflict harm to the individuals reading it, which yes also really harmful content. Again, it's about intent.
It's about intent. Did I say that already?
If the intent to censor an abusive content, then more power to them to do so. However, if done to prevent certain opinions and personal perspectives, it shows there is a narrative at play, and the one acting in censorship for political or personal reasons on content that isn't harmful, this becomes the abuser of power handed to him/her.
Because someone or a group of them, doesn't want the crowd to knows something that is publicly known, it doesn't give them the right to censor free speech. Is it shame and lack of accountability they do so? I think so, sometimes. Other times, they have no shame and are only in it for the $$$, control, power and to fill their want of superiority.
On Blurt.blog blurt.intinte.org but, unless it's changed recently, unlike blurtlatam.intinte.org or beeblurt.com, (again some areas) censorship can still happen yet most people are not really aware of it. It happens through the mute function. Unlike hive where people can just DV you, on blurt there isn't a DV function.
When you mute someone the people accessing blurt Blockchain from the mentioned sites above, will not be able to see comments made by the muted on the muters post.
Censorship occurs on both blockhains but it is limited to what each individual does with their power to mute, or to
DV if your on hive.
True morality is being able to be immoral and get away with it, and still choose to be moral. True strength is being able to tyrannize without regard to expense, and still choose to treat others as equals.
I'm not bashing on either chain. Both has its pros and cons and are both unique. Both have shadowbanning capabilities. Both are "resistant" to censorship. But the question lies in whether the stake holders or the individual himself, is resistant to censorship.
It is up to each individual to take the responsibility for himself how to delegate that power or how to use it themselves. The responsibility isn't just on the shoulders who have delegations whether large or small, nor is it just for the whales, it's on all of us. On you.
Thank you for reading. Please leave any useful information, concerns, dissent, love, your pets, food, etc in the comments below. Indeed, the public space is your space. Speak up. Use it.
Unless you have a court order demanding removal of such cobtent / website, you have no such right and any such actions / attempts are illegal.
You do not decide what is offensive - you need a court order.
I believe courts have often ruled otherwise.
In what country do you think this is true?
Look, a whole post! I'll vote for that, even though I strongly disagree with your position on shadowbanning.
Limiting your audience is not censorship, it's volume control.
For people like me, a 'muted' post is just like a 'click me' sign... I want to find out what they don't want me to see. Sometimes, it's a post, like this, and I'm glad I clicked it. Most times, it's a bunch of off site links, porn, or a stolen meme, and I'm glad it's being discouraged.
Since you seem to promote the philosophy of anarchy, I can see where the idea of any governance, even self governance, would be abhorrent to you. I feel the same way. However, conflating voluntary governance with tyranny is a big stretch, and hammering on that point is only going to alienate people who might otherwise listen.
That's why you get downvoted.
If you want to come to Hive, and disagree with how it's being run, then you should expect that the majority of people here, who like the way it is being run, are going to disagree with you. They won't all downvote you, because people are generally too apathetic for that, but they also won't complain when the whales do. In fact, they'll thank them, because they're performing a function that the users here want.
You're free to tell people here what they should or shouldn't want, but you really can't expect people to want to hear it.
Now, before you argue with me, stop acting like a reward farmer, and check out some of my previous posts, on this account and on my @paradoxtma account. You'll see that we agree much more than we disagree.
If you just want to tell me, again, how you think shadowbanning is censorship, please don't bother. I know your opinion on the matter, and you know mine. If you want to talk about sensible alternatives, let's have a conversation.