RE: Is Hive Watcher's doing a good job?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
LOL
Ordnung is not the basis for freedom, but rather Austrian jackboot fetishists. There does need to be order, but rather the order of the Goths than Romans. Freedom of speech has created the longest enduring societies the world has ever seen, starting millennia ago with the expansion of the Yamnaya that burst out of the steppes by inventing dairy and the economic advantage that provided.
Such invention is only facilitated by free speech, and demonstrates that it is free speech that is far more valuable than mere money.
Thanks!
0
0
0.000
Ordnung muss sein! :)
It is that supposed principles are being constantly contradicted, which are first proclaimed loudly and proudly and then broken with a downvote for not being able to stomach insults or differentiating opinions. On whim.
When I opened my Steemit account it was advertised with "you get paid to blog" and with "free speech", their unique selling points.
However, it cannot credibly advertise itself and later Hive as such, as free speech is prevented here just as it is elsewhere. Not through downvotes per se, but by promoting mainstream content. What you see on trending is what counts and is consumed mostly.
Since no clear set of rules is communicated centrally, there are no clear rules. For example, you have to get to know HW before you know what function it fulfils.
For me, Hive is an example of what happens when you create a space where people who have nothing to do with each other try their hand at politics. Since there are no familial, local or business relationships between them, the only currency is the attention currency. If you're not conjuring up the end of the world (extreme on one side) or drawing a utopia (extreme on the other), you remain a barely read user. Which I do not mind personally (IF I have a steady readership of a handful of people) but that's how online-activity seems to be understood.
Everything else is mediocre entertainment as a matter of fact.
People say that every user has to be a plagiarism/spam police. But the fact is that most people don't want to do that, which is understandable when you put into perspective how much time it takes to do just that.
The ludicrous thing about the situation is that if someone posts spam in large quantities, the payouts first have to be visible in order to be noticed, for example trending. But if they now appear on the trending page, it means that they already have high payouts. I would say that spam usually doesn't trend, but then spam is hard to find. So it's just a coincidence if you come across a spammer account.
I wouldn't downvote a spammer if I come across one, since it cannot be done by just one glimpse and then push a button. So you need a police. Who then reports violation to a mature committee, who then contacts the suspect, who then have a talk, who then clear the case. All of it must be transparent and not behind the scenes, as you rightly pointed out. The payment for the police and the committee must be worth the time and work invested. The documentation of the executives must be well written and thoroughly done by the best standards. The police ought not be the judges, only the ones who refer supposedly spammers and plagiarists to the committee.
Since "spam" isn't crystal clear either, some whales downvote posts that simply have a picture plus a little text as spam. Opinions can be divided here.
The users then complain because countless of them actually have no awareness at all that what they publish maybe regarded as totally unimportant rubbish. Only when you get to know a user do you begin to understand what their "one picture plus two lines" could mean. For example with antisocialist.
But of course, there ARE just rubbish postings who could as well be AI-supported content. One never knows before one does not engage on a one-on-one basis. So I would say people are not payed for their content but for being known (becoming acquainted to each other) through engagement over a longer course of time. It's relational.
If someone is not interested at all in building a relation towards his audience, it can mean (but not for sure) that he gives a damn. But you never know. Sometimes people want to share what they find important in an open space. And, as you say, value free speech more than payout. But it can't be helped, since the payout is in the first place what generates attention. So, free speech is linked to high payouts.
I have often experienced the politicians on this platform (witnesses) saying that they really don't want to debate with every single user, which is "exactly why downvotes and upvotes are distributed". But that's still what they should and are expected to do, as they are perceived as politicians and set themselves up as such.
But if you are in such a mood that you don't really want to have anything to do with the tedious work of a politician because it is supposedly enough to press buttons, you end up with a user base that presses buttons. The whole design is geared towards button-pushing and because of this, witnesses refuse to do anything other than push buttons. They justify it by saying that it saves time and the statement itself is enough for people to find buttons pressed on their post, representing either a thumbs up or a thumbs down. The whole nature of the algorithm is geared towards this.
"Saving time" and automating the very processes in which people actually can come to an understanding towards each other, is an illusion. Time cannot be saved, since conflict cannot be avoided. Avoiding conflict means to push buttons instead of debating.
It's an illusion to think that pushing buttons represent engagement since it doesn't. So, they can be believed in saying that they don't want to debate with every single user. But then, they cannot place a downvote either, if they refuse to talk to that specific user who received their downvote. That is a contradiction. They are expected to invest personal time and arguments. If they don't like it, they cannot be a witness, and should remove themselves from the witness list.
One person cannot talk to many people at the same time, that's true. Each individual can only have a conversation with a handful of people. If you violate this insight, you succumb to the misconception that this truth can be replaced by pressing buttons. It can't.
My goodness you are lucid! I am so glad I get the benefit of your considerations.
Aside from some expectations of witnesses I don't think are mete, I vehemently agree with most every word you have written here, and didn't know I did until you said it.
Hey! You do read my posts! LOL
Gah. This truth sticks in my craw. Nonetheless, it is true, so I'm choking it down. As much as I don't want a 'police', sorting plagiarism and tracking spam takes resources that require dedication mere content consumers aren't providing, and can't. What that means is that HW and Marky are understaffed (and HW is overpaid because of it), and there needs to be - as others have mentioned as well - a formal statement of what is and isn't spam, plagiarism, AI generated content, and so forth, and teams of competent people to serve in the various roles necessary to properly execute policing functions.
I don't know what the procedures have been heretofore, but when scams arise, actual police may legally be required to be informed.
You have substantially changed my perspective on this matter, and I cannot thank you enough for doing so. I hate being wrong, and now that I agree with you I am right again! But, can we have juries of our peers instead of professional committees or judges? I agree we need competent investigation and detection, but there will be matters of judgment, and it seems to me that juries are a strongly justified mechanism for rendering judgment, guilt or innocence, upon presentation of professional investigation and defense by the accused.
Also, once you have institutions, you get corruption. The professional police and investigation committees are going to be infiltrated by scammers seeking to influence investigations, so they can get away with scams. Juries are much more resistant to institutional corruption that judges and police IME.
Thanks!
HaHa! LoL :D - you know that I do.
However you recruit them, this is the weakest point in the matter.
To have non corruptible people, you'd actually would have to refer to the already existing organs outside of hive. But since hive is a globally working sphere, you'd have the executive and judiciary/jury positions according to the location of the involved. But if you have a party from England and one from Venezuela, you have a problem.
In order to meet conflict in a proper way, you need all three: the police to report suspects, a mediator group (arbitrator), and, if mediating does not work, a judge and a jury (while I do not see a jury needed in all cases). You cannot have those people from within the Hive network, since they would be in conflict with their interest. Since they are all stakeholders (getting paid for content creation).
To have outside-people getting involved, you'd actually would need real mediators and real police and real judges since you cannot be any of it, if that is not your education and profession - so people who ARE those pros and do hive as a hobby, for example. Everyone could be a jury member but then you'd have to sit by in a led process, which again, must be led by a professional. And accept HBD for compensation.
Having said all this, I see that almost nobody here is professionally educated in those fields. I am myself a consultant and have a bit experience in mediating, but probably wouldn't want to do it here professionally, since HBD/HP as compensation is not attractive enough.
Maybe, I would do a mediation process once a year for the fun and experience of it. But I would need, before anything, an official mandate from the conflicting parties - and they would have to accept that I probably would have a conflict of interest myself - LoL. There is a certain and strict protocol for mediating a conflict (for very good reasons). If you are interested, I dig in the basement of my steemit blogsite to pull one article out.
I don't see any conflict of interest. Outside Hive every jury member uses fiat. Juries on Hive using it's tokens aren't any more of a conflict of interest.
Seems to me that would cause them to more diligently judge carefully their peers, zealous to both defend the innocent (to make sure they're not judged unfairly themselves if they are falsely accused) as well as get scammers and malicious parties cured or censored. That's the point of juries of peers: folks that have a vested interest in justice, not kangaroo courts or pats on the backside for hazards to the community.
No one would better be able to investigate scams and etc. than Hive members that are competent to use the features of the front ends and platform, and only in cases of actual crimes, like theft and fraud, would outside authorities be necessary to bring in. Frankly, like all insular communities, I'd prefer to handle our business in house.
By the time we get to mediation, we should have a good understanding of the facts of the matter, which a proper adjudication metric should provide appropriate guidelines to a jury to implement.
So you're saying that jury members would have no conflict whatsoever as stakeholders in a cryptocurrency with the subject matter of what would be negotiated?
I am building up a case in my mind, to follow my thoughts on this...
Let's say you were prosecuting a case in some country where some stranger to the jury was accused of spamming. The company making the accusation would be some local social media platform in Germany, for example a forum for computer games. None of the jury members would have a monetary stake in this company because the company offers no possibility of monetary participation. None of them know the senior operators of this company and have never come into contact, either directly or indirectly.
What would be negotiated would be the accusation of inadmissible spamming on the sites accessible to the public.
What is the likelihood that the individuals on the jury would be guided by a financial interest, because it is said that the operation of the platform suffers financial and reputational damage as a result of spamming? The probability would not be given. The defendant would not have this specific financial motivation either.
The jury would be asked by the accuser to take the interest of the company into account, of course. The defendend would argue that the spamming accusation is not correct, because .... and so on and so forth.
If you now take Hive as that social media platform, where every opened account requires at least some stake, and where participation and engagement with other users is highly dependent on building up stake in order to become more visible, and in order to make ones own votes more attractive, and where the financial stability of the currency is linked to its success, and where participants use downvotes in order to counteract what they think is "damaging" the platform, but nowhere it is defined and can be looked up as a central rule what exactly is to be understood by "damage", that those jury members can come in no conflict with what they think about the matter of spam, the matter of the reward pool, the matter of downvotes themselves?
I would define that as a probability to come into conflict between my interest as a hive user and the interest of another hive user, would you not?
Personally, I don't think the point of using jurors is for them to be zealous. Rather, I think that because jurors are randomly selected (as I interpret your US law), they are considered a fair representation of the average citizen because they are allowed to have as little to do with the case presented to them as possible.
As I understand it, it would promote a conflict if jury members were, for example, shareholders in the company that a person accused of harming the company. So if by chance a person was selected who worked in the company or held shares in it, they would be excluded from the trial, I think.
Where I live, in the Pacific Northwest, there are company towns, where the entire population of a town works for one company, usually logging companies. They don't have any option to exclude jurors for working for the company the accused also works for (if they're a local). I believe that the reason the jury system works so well is that jurors are indeed zealous to ensure the rights of the accused are respected by the legal process, that the prosecution does effectively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their guilt, or to conserve the rights of the juror by voting not guilty if the prosecution does not meet that bar. People are indeed zealous of the felicity of their village or town, because their family depends on it, and don't want criminals to prey on themselves, or their friends, family, neighbors because that threatens themselves and their family. Juries are motivated to judge truly and justly because of these factors.
You've painted a very specific picture here. You come from the perspective that having a vested interest is THE requirement for judging over a case. Now, this interest is here the locality and familiarity as well as the dependency on a company which feeds the town.
I agree that what I would call determination (not zeal) to judge fairly may take place. IF the logging company IS seen as a valuable enterprise for the whole area. But the question would be, what point of accusation towards a single townsperson could such a company make, arguing that its stability or very existence was in jeopardy?
To be in jeopardy as a company through a damaging act by an individual, I can only imagine that it would be a case of a powerful individual (journalist, for example) who tries to damage the logging companies reputation. Then this journalist must have a lot of power (which usually is not the case if you are acting individually, but collectively). Since badmouthing a company by individuals in private usually does not harm the company in total.
I actually didn't say that it was necessary to juries. What I did say, or meant to say, was that interest improved the ability of juries to judge because it caused their attention to be sharp and focused, and their interest aligns with actual justice.
Anyway, I don't think juries are magical. They certainly reflect their societies, which includes the bad with the good.
Alright. Thanks for clarifying.
True.
Have you ever been a member of a jury yourself? Or do you know someone who was?
We don't have that in Germany. What we have, is this:
Unfortunately, the wiki-entry does not translate into English. If you are interested, you must translate it yourself. I wasn't knowing about the "Schöffen" myself. I only knew the word and vaguely what it could mean. I was surprised when I read that you can act as a lay judge in court and that your vote actually counts just as much as that of a professional judge.
Well, juries in the US can actually rule that the law is the problem, not actions of the defendant. It's called Jury Nullification, and judges hate, hate, hate it. They often caution juries, dismiss attorneys, and start trials over if jury nullification is mentioned. They've even muzzled defendants so they can't speak out of order at trial. American juries are yet one of the most powerful vestiges of actual democracy left in the country, since voting at the national level is merely a ritual and ballot box stuffing or burning the ballots of the challenging candidate tend to decide elections where more than a few million dollars are spent on the contest. Small local elections are both more effective in controlling local polities, and more likely to be decided by the actual voters, because there's less money involved, and teams of ballot farmers cost too much.
Thus, when the wrong candidate gets in office and passes bad laws, juries have authority to nullify such laws during trials of people accused of breaking them, as well as declare the defendant guilty or not guilty. I think very highly of juries, but have been disappointed with jurors, because so many of them aren't very competent to understand technical issues, are bamboozled by their indoctrinations and propaganda, or aren't very attentive or courageous when human rights are violated by laws and courts.
I have been on juries, which is where I formed my opinion.
That is very interesting. I didn't know about Nullification. That's a great tool to counteract stupid laws. I would be interested in statistics, how often it happened that Nullification was successful. Is this ever in the media?
Yeah, I bet that this is not very well received from those who are in full line with none sensical regulations.
People here in my country who do not abide by the law, sometimes hope that someone accuses them and then a trial in court takes place. That is, of course, a high risk that your case will be judged against you.
It tells a lot about the state of affairs if those very tools to put things in balance are neither known nor often enough used.
I was attending a trial not so long ago and the result was disappointing since the judge decided against the woman accused. But what was worth it for me to watch it was that I saw how the judge actually struggled with the case and said some things which impressed me. It was obvious to me that he actually would have liked to decide in favour of the defendant, but couldn't find the courage to do so.
But when the prosecutors responded to his questions to them in such a way that they thought the defendant was guilty from the outset and it became obvious that they did, he became quite annoyed and told them: "If that's the case, that you want to ignore what you've heard here, we could save ourselves any trial!" He did indeed say a few other intelligent things, but on the whole it was not enough to secure an acquittal. He tried hard to work the prosecutors so that they could have done the difficult task of dropping the charges (which would obviously have been the best solution for him), but finally, after four tough sessions, he did what he did.
However, it was important for me to witness this live and to realise that things are often not as black and white as we see them from a distance.
Almost never, first because the courts suppress to the degree possible that power juries have, and because the media are utterly craven traitors that make every effort to impose the worst despotism humanity has ever suffered, and therefore suppress useful information and means people can employ to repair and reclaim their government.
Having said all this and having talked to themarkymark in this comment thread (and others before him), I think that the witnesses don't hold themselves accountable for giving rules, since they seem to think that the so called white paper says it all.
Since the analogy of a crab bucket is used, they are more or less saying, that the so called community (each and every single individual crab) rules. That can be translated to "every one rules". But if everyone rules, then no one rules. A place cannot be ruled by everyone.
If that is believed, rules are not there. What IS there is personal individual whim, taste, opportunism, hostility, sympathy, pity.
Since the witnesses say that they cannot give any clear rules because of "decentralization" they will not give out any clear rule to which they (as well as every one else) can be held accountable. Because accountability would be something all actors could refer to. But when you have no reference and no authority, arguing and negotiating becomes futile. Every virtue signaling becomes futile.
Indeed, this is the case.
In the broader context the illusion exists as a phenomena, that there is no authority but one's own, that there is no objectivity but only subjectivity, the individual is condemned to look only at himself as a reference and to neglect perspectives (and facts) from a point of view other than his own, the resultant error turns the many individuals into a righteous mob that believes it can exercise authority based on the individual's presumed sense of justice by means of the sole point of view AND immediate, not thorough, thought.
When the focus is taken away from the power that issues regulations (but not rules), because the issuers no longer feel responsible for their actions, they have rid themselves of any vulnerability.
Although they act as shells for permanent top-down regulation of individual issues (which are available as an inexhaustible pool), they then raise their hands and say: We have placed the issue in your hands, so may you now resolve the conflict with each other (not with us), which we have prepared the ground for but which is beyond our control.
They act like a confectioner who takes an existing successful recipe for sand cakes and says: "From now on, it is forbidden to use flour for sand cakes. Anyone who uses flour anyway and is reported by those who have accepted the use of flour as criminal is confronted with the act of litigation."
And one is no longer allowed to ask how it can be that the pastry chef decides that flour can no longer be used for sand cakes. But this pastry chef points his finger at those who have accepted “flour is forbidden” and says: “Well, if I'm so wrong, why do your accusers think exactly like me?"
Basically, the legislator seem not to care what happens next.
Since he has stripped himself of his own authority - the ability to make careful considerations - to know what is needed or not needed, and to be careful with law-making anyway. He simply enacts one "law" after another because he thinks that is what is expected of him (listening only to the doomsday sayers or the utopian shouters - through the use of the screen).
But this cannot be a reasonable expectation, because a law cannot be responsible for all people and all situations and should only be invoked when there is no other alternative.
But where the legislator pretends that there is no alternative from the outset and that the actors under his alleged authority do not and cannot know anything about alternatives, he is basically saying: I am the law and I know that my law has no alternative. But if you as a people disagree, you must be able to prove it and if you can't prove it, you will be punished/must submit.
I believe this is classically referred to as “proof reversal”.
This means that individuals no longer have to assume their innocence in principle, but rather has been put as principally guilty, and must first prove their innocence.
But to whom? The individual cannot address the legislator directly. One individual has to produce a conflict with some other individual (or company) which proves the regulation wrong (and the "law" as well). Or, the individual turns to a political party which still wants to listen and debate and is in opposition to the ruling party.
Which motivates me full circle to say that "ruling" legislators seem to have turned into an irresponsible bunch who believe in nothing higher than themselves.
That is a problem with Legislatures. Once you have 10 commandments, you don't need more commandments, but legislators are paid to create laws, so they keep creating commandments that are not only unnecessary, but - because each law criminalizes an action, create breaches of these unjust laws that are treated as crimes - are actually crimes themselves.
I don't recall the actual statistics, but the various jurisdictions in the US create a stack of laws head high yearly, all of which further deprecate freedom and are crimes because they are unjust. Worse, corruption inevitably infests institutions, and some laws are intended to be crimes crooked legislators effect because they're bribed or blackmailed to do so, using saving children, terrorists, or smth to justify their enactment.
After a couple centuries this pile of tyrannies and oppressions really stacks up and turns a free country into a totalitarian despotism that societies either destroy, or are destroyed by. I reckon this is the reason we see specific evils repeated in history, despite the obvious malignance and eventual outcomes of those evils (revolution, hanging crooked politicians from lamp posts, etc.). Since each evil isn't part of some overall master plan to attain anything but some benefit desirable to the corrupters, the holistic concatenation of these evils isn't a goal, but tends to be arrived at consistently anyway.
Weimar Germany, Justinian Byzantium, and the West today all strikingly resemble one another in the specific degeneracies and lapses of just governance that degrade them, and we should not be surprised when the West ends up being resolved in the same way Byzantium, Weimar Germany, and similar degenerate states have been.
However, the technological capabilities of human society do not simply cycle. While polities rise from chaos and proceed to repeat the political cycle, technology only infrequently is reset to the Stone age. Technological advance may pause when polities being reset prevents continued development temporarily, the tech capabilities don't reset to zero, but advance from where they were when they paused.
Decentralization of means of production is quite obviously the cutting edge of every field of industry today. Dispersing production of goods and services across the population dramatically changes the dynamic of power in society. Where overlords have been necessary to manage centralized production for millennia, because the machinery of production has required collective human labor to make it work, when automation enables individuals, or much smaller and more easily managed groups, like individual households, overlords are not only no longer necessary, they are repugnant because they are so expensive.
For example, a movie studio that makes a surfer movie using the big film cameras used in the 60s has huge crews and needs expensive lawyers. Today a surfer with a gopro has no need of expensive lawyers, and would find the claim of the bar that he needed to spend $1m/year on retainers absolutely intolerable. This isn't merely some utopian fantasy. Across every field of industry this is the restructuring being undertaken today, as 3D printers, aquaponics, mesh networks, printable electronics, and the variety of automated means of production available to individuals burgeon and develop.
Add to that the increased productivity of the most advanced technology in each of the fields, such as cooking. In the Stone age you made flour by grinding grain between rocks by hand. For millennia this was the way to make flour, with gradual increases in industrial capacity from a woman with a mortar and pestle being the state of the art to Roman water powered mills built in a row along a flowing stream. Then the industrial revolution introduced the steam engine, and manufacturing capacity advanced from steam donkeys to the digitally controlled electric motors flour mills owned by corporations have today.
However the advent of household grain mills makes it unnecessary to buy bleached enriched flour from corporations that grow GMO grain doused in biocides. People can massively improve the quality of the flour they eat - which has become not just a benefit, but an existential need, because all that bleaching, enriching, and dousing is chemically castrating us to the point that testosterone has plummeted, and fertility has dropped below replacement levels. This means that people that buy or grow organic grain and grind it themselves have a massive advantage over people that buy flour from corporations, because they aren't chemically neutered and successfully breed, while people that do buy flour from overlords go extinct.
Because flour isn't the only source of such chemical pollution, people that take advantage of the most advanced technology which eliminates waste and expenses specific to centralization also gain the most benefit from the products they make themselves, because they make bespoke products exactly to their specifications, rather than mass produced crap that just gets jammed into their use case, and all the myriad ways chemical pollution gets into our diets and environment are reduced across the board. For instance I make my own toothpaste, deodorant, and other household products that don't have emulsifiers, plasticizers, or detergents in them, dramatically reducing the chemical pollution I am exposed to.
In toto, the increased benefit people and societies gain from decentralization isn't merely quantitative, but is qualitative in that it is the difference between reproductive success and failure, between freedom and slavery, between felicity and penury. Because decentralization and automation advance every field of industry this isn't just a minor change, like from land line telephones to mobile phones, but a dramatic evolution of society that is deprecating the master/slave system to replace it with freeholds of peers.
Then add the nascent advent of access to resources that aren't on Earth, like asteroid Psyche, worth ~$1Q (one quadrillion dollar). Because we can automate production of sealed environments, print solar panels, create closed loop ecologies with aquaponics that create food, water, and air, and etc., and today spacecraft are being 3D printed, the obvious result is going to be a diaspora of free people able to provide everything they need themselves to wherever valuable resources are they can develop. Because of the paradigm of centralized hierarchies depends on the entire hierarchy focusing it's abilities on the orders of the overlord, institutions like corporations, governments, and armies aren't capable of conquering and ruling diasporas. Diasporas may have little military power in each of the disparate points, but because they are managed independently there is no central point of failure an army can conquer and thereafter control the diaspora.
IOW, the rule of overlords and polities is becoming impossible, and free people will become prosperous beyond my ability to conceive as they spread out across the universe. I hope that makes more sense than my prior doom/utopian posts have. It's simply evolution of capabilities happening across the board transcending a clinal boundary, and creating new environmental conditions that are dramatically different than existed before.
Right. I often thought that one can judge every case of conflict from those very principles.
I agree very much that people become more aware of the absurdities, the more they are in their face, and that humans are ingenious in how to handle problems on their own. Becoming knowledgable and skilled in what one needs as existential tools and foods though requires time and practice, and people who can teach that kind of skills. It looks often enough like a race against time.
We need each other on every front, not only the technological one (of which there is not much I can add) but also on the political front, the cultural, the spiritual etc. - I yet have still to decide whom to join and what I am going to do with the time I have.
I talk more to people here locally, to those whom I meet in their work places , for example. Yesterday I talked to one member of a party who was on promotion tour with his colleagues, because of an upcoming election. These are local politicians, and it was good to hear from an insider what they have to say and what is going on in their minds, and what they think they already have achieved. We've talked for about an hour, I was actually on my way to do groceries. I can't give you a summary of the content, it was just too much we've touched upon.
Since I am in touch with people around me, and since I am more content with myself, I actually get along so much better with other humans than ever before, which also has to do with the fact that I became more confident in expression and what I believe is true. Same with remaining friends (the little I have). All of them appear so different from the folks I used to be with, that I hardly can believe it. There are indeed many intelligent people out there.
So yeah, let's not become hopeless, and instead do what everyone can.
LoL! Mostly it did. I am sorry that I am not directly responding to what you have talked about in detail. I am simply not competent enough to talk about the technology related stuff. My skills lay elsewhere.
I am so glad that you got it!
People think of themselves that they can be anything in one person:
a police officer, an arbitrator, a judge, a juror AND an ethically mature person. That is impossible. In oder being all of them you'd need 20 years of education and still you could't do it in one person, since that is insane.
AHA
NOW WHAT
YOU NEED TO DECIDE
ARE YOU FOR FREE SPEECH
OR ARE YOU CONDEMNING ME FOR IT ?
stupid asshole
You mistake what condemns you. It isn't that you have free speech. It's that you are malevolent.
By your judgment you are judged. You will not find such vile insults in any of my posts or comments, so I do not merit condemnation. You condemn yourself.