Permalink
Browse files

Merge pull request #3153 from steemit/tos-user-2019-01-07

Adding user to list due to ToS violation of steemit.com
  • Loading branch information...
jredbeard committed Jan 7, 2019
2 parents f7a1ec7 + 4d40cf0 commit cdf56507e11f367f6decc42a6c059c2d30db9cf4
Showing with 1 addition and 0 deletions.
  1. +1 −0 src/app/utils/GDPRUserList.js
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ xondra
tgylhn
vichkovski
wizzymt
thedarkoverlord
`
.trim()
.split('\n');

17 comments on commit cdf5650

@kirkins

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

kirkins replied Jan 7, 2019

Lame, sellouts

@ktec

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

ktec replied Jan 8, 2019

Shame, censorship is never the right path

@kn0ll

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

kn0ll replied Jan 8, 2019

this reminds me of how Google links to Lumen Database for DMCA complaint.

the content is still there. consider this file a directory, not a blacklist. :)

@cryptohazard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cryptohazard replied Jan 8, 2019

Seriously? Now censorship?

@noisy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

noisy replied Jan 8, 2019

Maybe Steemit wanted to help by Barbra Streisand effect? :)

List of just a few Steem interfaces where this account is still visible:
https://busy.org/@thedarkoverlord
https://steempeak.com/@thedarkoverlord
https://www.steeve.app/@thedarkoverlord
https://www.insteem.com/@thedarkoverlord
https://cryptoempirebot.com/@thedarkoverlord
https://steemkr.com/@thedarkoverlord

and of course apps for mobile and desktop: https://esteem.app/, https://partiko.app/

Note: So... maybe Steemit just wanted comply to some request to not make any troubles... but at the same time they knew, that this will actually make this article more visible by Barbra Streisand in all other interfaces, which Steemit Inc. knew... will be able to still serve uncensorable content from Steem blockchain :)

@noisy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

noisy replied Jan 8, 2019

@cryptohazard @kn0ll @ktec @kirkins - remember that content is still on Steem network. Steemit can hide some content if he will be asked to do so by some man in black suits. But Steem was designed in such a way, that there will be always some Steem interface in different part of the world under different jurisdiction, which will still be able to show content anyway.

Knowing this... Steemit just new, that when it will be asked... it can hide content on requests... because they know that this content will be visible anyway.

Actually... this helps, because this just marks such a content as more important and popularize it by Streisand effect.

Think about it... if you would like play a game on a computer, and your mother would ask you to give her your power cord... would you really resist giving her it, knowing that you have a bunch of other power cords in the backpack?

@kirkins

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

kirkins replied Jan 8, 2019

@noisy steem is a centralized blockchain in both development and governance (with people in both camps deeply involved with each other).

As EOS has shown us censorship and reversal of blocks is very possible and not out of the possibility in the future.

@cryptohazard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cryptohazard replied Jan 8, 2019

@TimCliff

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

TimCliff replied Jan 8, 2019

@kirkins - nobody has reversed any blocks or removed any data from the blockchain. That is not even up for discussion at this point. Steem != EOS. As many people have pointed out, there are plenty of other UIs where the data can still be consumed.

@kn0ll

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

kn0ll replied Jan 8, 2019

@noisy thats what I said ☺️

@kirkins

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

kirkins replied Jan 8, 2019

@TimCliff I respect that it hasn't be done before but it would be possible. The quickness to ban the account in less than 1 week is worrying. Was SteemIt contacted by a government agency requiring this filter or was it voluntarily done by the team?

Most don't run any sort of node if the right key players modify the code and reverse a transaction many won't notice as was seen with:

steemit/steem#2583

@TimCliff

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

TimCliff replied Jan 8, 2019

There are lots of things that are theoretically possible, but trying to stir up worry about them when they are not even being discussed is basically FUD. To entertain your idea though (since it is at least theoretically possible), if we ever did get into the territory where witnesses were being forced to censor content on the blockchain itself, it is likely that you would see a "Steem and Steem Classic" (fork) type situation occur, and the data would still be available on the unedited fork.

I realize that it is concerning, and the concern is valid - but all that has really happened at this point is one privately held company has made the decision not to show the content on their website - which they have every right to do as a privately held company.

@iamsmooth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

iamsmooth replied Jan 8, 2019

@jredbeard Did you determine that @thedarkoverlord actually used your web site at all? Because if not (that is, if they interacted with the blockchain using some other mechanism), then it is not correct to claim a ToS violation because a non-user of your site can not possibly violate your site's ToS. You can of course decline to serve their content via your web site in any case but it would have to be for some other reason than a ToS violation.

@anorakthagreat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

anorakthagreat replied Jan 8, 2019

Well, as much as I hate to see censorship, this was expected. The centralized org website interface to the Steem blockchain got pressured into adhering to laws or ToS they laid out themselves. Remember, Steem != Steemit.

@iamsmooth, it doesn't really matter, but also depends how a user is defined in their ToS. If a 'user' is automatically any author on Steem then there's a violation. Otherwise, they're just covering their ass from the badges & black suits

@iamsmooth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

iamsmooth replied Jan 9, 2019

@anorakthagreat I don't agree you can meaningfully define user that way. Someone using Steem (blockchain) but not using steemit.com is not a party to their ToS and can't violate it. "Content outside ToS" or some such would make sense but not "violation".

@anorakthagreat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

anorakthagreat replied Jan 9, 2019

@iamsmooth, in that case, see the 2nd part of my comment :)

@inertia186

This comment has been minimized.

Please sign in to comment.