I don't know your specific case so I can't comment on that.
But my idea about using AI in Hive I expressed in my article and in the comments to that one. Unfortunately the most interesting in Italian which is my native language and I don't have fluent English.
On the contrary, in this regard, I immediately state, to avoid misunderstandings, that in my answer I am receiving support from AI (Google Translator, yes, that too is an algorithm, i.e. an AI).
Summing up:
1. The criminalization of the use of AI is due to ignorance
2. AI is a tool and a tool cannot be judged, only the use made of it.
3. automatic voting is also an AI
4. Hive posts should be judged on the quality and level of interaction of the author.
5. The author's interaction level is not helped by the use of AI
6. on Hive there are many posts that are voted without having any or poor quality, and the AI does not make the situation worse
7. indicating the use of AI is a principle of transparency but it does not seem fundamental to me especially if the AI was used only to support and not to write the entire article
8. I see many posts, even from whales or important characters on Hive, which report images without indicating the source, although it is clear they are taken from the web. Is it less serious than using AI?
9. Moderation and downvote should be limited to avoid serious phenomena and I do not consider the use of AI at this level.
Having said that, however, I do not agree on combining downvote and censorship: they are two different concepts: no one prohibits publication, nor could they do so, but the gain from publication is limited. Censoring means preventing people from expressing themselves, not preventing them from earning.
Censorship is not only preventing people from speaking, it's any suppression of their speech, and downvotes certainly do suppress speech. In fact, it is their ability to censor spam, scams, and plagiarism that make them necessary to Hive.
Please search up any authoritative source for a definition of censorship to see that I am speaking the truth. I have in the past provided links to Webster's, Wikipedia, Britannica, and others, but feel you are more than capable of doing so yourself, and likely to more benefit from doing so, as people seem to feel links others provide are somehow suspect.
What you write is true up to a certain point. What you provide is a very broad definition of the term censorship, a definition in some ways political, and being political, very elastic, which society uses with convenient interpretations depending on the situation.
Censorship is impediment to expression. Nobody prevents you from expressing yourself on Hive. You can do it. In compliance with the rules of the environment.
I don't think you let anyone come into your house and start saying whatever they want. I guess you set limits on what your guests can express, beyond which you kick them out of the house. Even the most democratic states have statutory limits on what is free speech. And I say this while thinking that there shouldn't be crimes of opinion as they exist in all states. Similarly Hive has rules: you can write and express whatever you want and NOBODY can prevent it. He just has no means to do that. But the community can keep you from making money from what you write. If what you want to communicate is of fundamental importance to you, I don't think making money from it is relevant.
There is no other environment that has more freedom on this than Hive. Or rather, they exist, but the overlapping of voices, often of poor quality, with no possibility of limitation, has led those places to simply not be frequented: even the background noise limits the diffusion of your message.
I pretty strongly agree with what you say here. I have all too often encountered stake holders trying to bamboozle people into believing that downvotes aren't censorship, which leaves people vulnerable to their misunderstanding, and that is why I interejected at all.
Indeed, that is why I'm here today.
Okay. Thanks a lot for reaching out mate! I appreciate that you took out time to respond.
First of, your English is not bad at all for a non-native English speaker. It is quite okay and I had zero difficulty understanding you.
Also, thanks for clarifying my thoughts on the idea of censorship and downvoting as to how they are distinct concepts.
While your view of AI use agrees with mine, I believe it is not a very popular view here on Hive. As a result, it seems its safer to go with the chain's flow, so one is not caught up in a lot of controversies just as I am currently.
I think with time, more clearer stance on the use of AI would be made public, while we wait, I want to say thanks again for reaching out.
Sorry I tagged you here! Sincere apologies!
That's not my English :) I'm using an AI, called Google Translator. ;)
There's no need to apologize. You did me no harm and I answered because I liked doing it.
All great advances have always struggled to make headway, AI will be no exception. Ed Hive is turning out to be a more conservative environment than it might have seemed.
Lol. Thanks for sticking around and using AI to facilitate our communication 😉.
That's a solid point. I remember the story and issues surrounding the use of calculators. I wrote a lot about this, but most persons found it offensive!
This is also very true. But I believe in no time, things will be properly ironed out.
Censorship is any suppression or alteration of speech. Total censorship can only be achieved by double tapping you to the back of the head, and upon reflection you should grasp that censorship is commonly a matter of degree, and prevention of speech at all is almost always unrealistic.
You can ascertain the actual definition of censorship and observe that downvotes are in fact censorship by searching up any authoritative source of your choice and reading the definition provided.
This is a valid point, because with the amount of downvotes I've been receiving lately, it feels clearly evident that there isn't a need trying to write again on the chain. I've been brought to a halt with regards to my activities here.
I'm just trying to find the next way out, because the appeal process for HW is only designed to be humiliating. Any suggestions is appreciated.
HW is just another user. It is not the law. There are other users that act to counter HW, opposing censorship, such as @freezepeach, who may use their stake to counter downvotes.
If your will and determination to speak the truth is subsidiary to your financial interests, you will always be subject to control large stakeholders effect. Your interests will inform your actions, and it is to your benefit you well understand them, and the influences on them. If stake is primary amongst your interests, you will best meet your needs by meeting the demands of large stakeholders.
Arguing with large stakeholders will be contrary to your interests in that case, and insofar as you have, you find your actions regrettable. You will have to carefully consider your interests, well understand yourself, and create an action plan based on your current circumstances that will best meet your needs.
As for my own values, I find financial interests of little relevance on Hive, and I am primarily here to speak forthrightly and hear the forthright speech of others, so I am focused on such matters, and largely deprecate others. My preferred actions are likely to be irrelevant to you, who have your own interests.
Thanks a lot. These are quite valid points, and I appreciate your honest appraisal and suggestions. Definitely, I'd have to choose what's more important to me and act accordingly based on my innate values. I appreciate your support and frankness so far. Maybe, we could get to talk more off the chain, and collaborate on a few things in the future (that's if you are Okay with it, Discord is fine for me).