I know you won't reply, you never do, but know that as much as I've criticized you in recent times, I've done so not because I'm your enemy, not because I hate you (I don't know you), but because I believed your actions were not in the best interest of Steem, and I happen to care a lot about this platform myself.

Be Honest about this Jerry

If you've participated of many communities before, If you've been an important member of so many websites, so many businesses. Why does it always end up the same? Why do you amass a collection of haters every single time?

It all could be coincidence, it's possible, but it's also very improbable. Statistically speaking such thing would be an aberrant and I'm inclined to think it's not the case.

There are things that you constantly have done, that for whatever reason within your truth as you call it, you found ethical, but many did not. If you can't face that, then this cycle you've decided to live, will continue to be yours to own.

Regarding Flags

The conversation should be raised, it should be discussed no doubt. But some of the things you've discussed on this video are not accurate, and you've conflated some things, probably intentionally, and also contradicted yourself a couple of times.

• Flags are censorship - so they need to be removed, because censorship is terrible, yet you say a few minutes later that hate speech should be censored from the interfaces.

"In other words, censorship is wrong, except for when it's necessary."

This seems inaccurate to me in two main points.

• Not even the most flagged post in history is actually deleted from the blockchain. The images are also not hosted on the blockchain, thus they are also not deleted, ever.

You know very well there is a show button on all interfaces, and as a witness I'm sure you are also aware the image hosting is not done on the blockchain itself.

If you did not know this, I don't know what to say - I would be heavily disappointed with you to say the least.

• Removing rewards is not censorship by definition - if I don't pay a band that played a my event, that did not mean they did not get to play.

I see this second mischaracterization of flags also intentional. As if you are trying to convince someone. If you say something, and do not get paid you got censored. That sounds a bit like entitlement to me.

Valuation of Steem

I'm a little bummed out about this myself, I won't lie. I'm barely a dolphin account and don't have the funds to buy anymore, but I'm also not going to blame the price on flags when the whole cryptosphere is bleeding red.

This would be like me standing in the middle of a storm here in florida, with water damage inside my home. Looking at a soggy ceiling, with a drip bucket as the wind punishes my windows, and telling my girl. Look... the freaking plumber is an asshole.

Of course, there are things we could and should be doing to improve Steem, but you conveniently left out the part that when posts get flagged the money taken from the post goes back into the pool.

This could also be intentional, because if you tell me you didn't know, you will literally have blown my mind.

About you powering down

That's your right to do, no one can or should tell you what to do with your money. However, you must accept the attitude you are taking is that of someone who is very emotional at the moment.

To be honest with you, I get it. People have been really harsh on you, and to be honest what you do in your private life is 100% your business and none of us should really tell you what you can or should do regarding your private life. For my part in that whole shit show, I apologize. That's not what I sought out to accomplish when I wrote about the Jerry Coins.

But the point I'm trying to make is that what you've effectively made here is an emotional ultimatum.

"Do as I say or I'm GONE!"

Are some of the concerns you have valid? Yes of course, but what do you think will be the natural reaction stake holders will have to your ultimatum video? - I'm willing to bet it won't be friendly and I truly regret that.

Regarding the idea, let Spammers, and Haters Hate

With the caveat that they are going to buy Steem anyways and that's good, taste so much like sand in my mouth I'm upset I even have to explain why this is wrong.

This would be the equivalent of me saying things like:

• It's OK that I serve pedophiles in my business, they pay with money too.
• It's OK to turn a blind eye to people to deal drugs to children, they buy into my business too.

Yes, that's a bit of strawmaning for you, but I'm trying to make a point. You can't ethically justify bad actors, horrible human beings, etc just because they are going to buy STEEM and power up.

Why would anyone need to even make that argument to you? Can't you see how wrong that is?

The fear of Speaking up

Yes of course, that's there, that's normal but in many ways it emulates how the meat world works as well.

If I go up to a random stranger and yell in their face, I should fear the consequence of my actions. The idea is for people to have a consequence for being asshats, if there is no consequence to be paid, you effectively have another comment section of youtube magnified to the power of ten.

Abusive SP Holders

It does feel terrible to get flagged just because one person disagrees. It's happened to me too, and I won't deny it.

However, you are also not taking into account that some of the "abusers" are also human and they can be reasoned with. (please note the air quotes)

I'm confident I can tell @berniesanders he is wrong about something, as long as I'm doing so with respect and I appeal to the only thing that matters to an investor. His pocket... Why? Because if we can always count on someone acting in their own best interested, because we all freaking do it.

He's a bag holder, just like @transisto. Everything they do, every single choice they make affects their wealth. Why would I not attempt to think as if I was in their shoes before making my case?

If the conversation is personal, if the critiques are ad hominem, and I get flagged I think I got it coming for acting like a brain dead idiot.

The answer is somewhere in the middle

@aggroed once spoke with us (on a town hall) about an idea once proposed for vote nullification (you counter someone's vote, not flag the post itself) - This would take some of the psychological effects out of the equation.

In other words, if someone votes you with $20 , someone could reduce that one upvote by a fraction or by a lot, but not affect the post itself.

Anyways....

I know you won't answer me, but maybe the points I've brought up will bring some balance to this conversation, because it seems like you are attempting to move to this un unhealthy extreme.

@meno