Hey Luke,

First off, Happy New Year and I really appreciate your response to this.
You're someone who has been on the receiving end of excessive flagging and you've met Derrick in real life which kinda makes you the perfect person to comment on this.

I tagged you and @azircon in this post to find out why ALL of @dbroze's post were being flagged so heavily. I understand the need for anti-abuse and flagging as there a have been serious instances of abuse and spam on the network, especially pre-RC credits.

My point was more about why does a curation project, that both of you delegate to, decide unilaterally that all of someone's post need to be flagged?

If there's a flag for a selfie or a short announcement that is over-valued, I think that flags may be justified. However, I take issue with blanket flagging and excessive flagging. Particularly, as @azircon has demonstrated in this thread, when the poster is accused of disinformation yet no comment is made, no refutation is attempted, no dialog is initiated, and no reasons given for the flags.

Significant amounts of HP have been delegated to @curangel, and like with any delegation, in my opinion, this comes with a greater amount of responsibility. In this case, I will concede to whoever is controlling the voting of @curangel they didn't vote the posts to zero. So, some effort is being made to limit the damaged so to speak. Yet, I feel that they owe an explanation to the author as to why they are being consistently flagged or educate the user as to the unwritten rules of Hive that they are unaware they are in violation of.
So, I would agree with "maybe the best approach is to explain how this all works and then downvote without any personal attack."

However, like it or not, when flags are initiated by powerful accounts, they drive users off this platform. They may or may not be their intention but that is an undeniable result.

I've also been posting on the platform since 2016 so I'm well aware of the politics and particular nuances that surround downvoting. Others, such as Derrick and other alternative media content creators have also posted on to the platform for just as long. They often are cast as leeches who are draining the rewards pool because their posts attract consistent rewards and yet their engagement with the platform aside from posting is minimal. I understand the argument. What value do they bring to Hive's ecosystem?

Well, like you mentioned, often they have a substantial and loyal following like @corbettreport or @caitlinjohnstone that DO bring new users to the platform. Something that Hive desperately needs more of is users, consumers and crypto-curious neophytes.

Because of the subject matter that alternative media delves into they have been cast with a broad brush by the gatekeepers of this platform, and I would argue, without justification. People are flagged and labelled as "conspiracy theorists" dismissing all of their work and reporting as unworthy of consideration and rewards. Get use to it or GTFO. I'm not sure that's the best way to grow a user base.

Meanwhile, some of the platforms biggest abusers (drainers of the rewards pool - see bidbots) act as if they alone know what is 'quality content' and claim that they are selflessly defending the rewards pool for the sake of the ecosystem. Yet, they are the one's who have and will continue to benefit the most from a shrinking userbase as their curation projects benefit from allocating more rewards where they see fit. The words "decentralized" and "community" are thrown about but in the end it really comes down to control, profits and self-interest.

I think you're correct when you state that the platform is ruled by a plutocracy - here, like in the real world, might makes right and HP dictates all.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, as I think your opinion is fair and holds weight in the community.

All the best in 2021!