You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Developer @sneak Hides Two Highly Revealing Posts Related To Verifiable Student Actors Involved in Florida School Shooting
From my observation flagging it to the point of near invisibility is effetively a form of suppression, maybe not censorsip.
What drew me to Steemit is that as an activist I am heavily censored everywhere I go and I was told this community was more of the "If I don't like it, I don't read it" type of place.
To me, censorship is removing it completely.
But a high power user actively flagging someone at full power can lead to the minnow feeling suppressed and leaving, which effectively censors.
He's allowed to do it, and it doesn't remove content.
It's the "WHY" he's doing it that bothers me.
Flagging things you disagree with, particularly when you claim they are lies without being able to prove the null hypothesis, is arrogant and corrosive.
He should be publicly shamed more often for this. First I've heard of it.
The null hypothesis does not mean that we accept lies at face value; in fact quite the opposite. The burden of proof lies (ha) on the liar, to prove their statements. In this case, the liar cannot, because they are a liar and their statements are false.
You have it backwards.
Well, in this specific situation, he certainly provided more evidence (conjecture or otherwise) than you did, hence my 'null hypothesis' statement.
Denouncing someone as a tinfoil conspiracy theorist is not an argument, nor is calling someone a liar off-hand for believing something you deem unbelievable.
This is the foundation of freedom of speech, something I would hope would be apparent working with an organization like Steemit, Inc. Otherwise, you end up with centralized arbiters of truth acting as judge, jury, and executioner for all things related to objective reporting of events.
In your instinctive reaction, you a) assert the individual is a liar, b) claim they told a lie, and c) assert that because he is a liar and has told a lie, he is unable to prove his statement. This is circular reasoning and allows for no discussion because YOU have placed yourself in the position of 'truth arbiter' without even attempting to prove your assertions. YOU have become judge, jury, and executioner of the Truth -- a title I would loathe to accept.
You hit the nail on the head dude.
Followed
Suppressing information is censoring information. It is not necessary to utterly erase the information to censor it.