Ah -- i missed that. A shame because the author had other interesting contrarian posts esrlier in week (e.g. https://stacker.news/items/1511251/r/billytheked). 

Would this be an example of free speech not being "free?" i.e. someone needs to put up to have something published? Visibility needs capital (monetery, social or otherwise) etc.?

As a side note, I was one "casualty" of the downzapping doldrums back earlier this year, and so I can sympathize, it's not fun being subjected to that.

billytheked

I mostly agree, however, there was that BIP 110 post (

) and I was talking with the author on nostr (they had misunderstood some of how SN works and thought downzapping could be used to "suppress" points of view and probably because all this filter stuff is so darn emotional for people she seemed to feel that SN was being unfair to her. So I was pointing out that her post had actually done quite well...and then somebody downzapped it 14k sats. Which is exactly how this is supposed to work (peopel can vote with their sats) and yet it also is not a great way to foster discussion it seems.

Downzaps Censoring in Practice

anon

I mostly agree, however, there was that BIP 110 post (https://stacker.news/items/1512794/r/Scoresby) and I was talking with the author on nostr (they had misunderstood some of how SN works and thought downzapping could be used to "suppress" points of view and probably because all this filter stuff is so darn emotional for people she seemed to feel that SN was being unfair to her. So I was pointing out that her post had actually done quite well...and then somebody downzapped it 14k sats. Which is exactly how this is supposed to work (peopel can vote with their sats) and yet it also is not a great way to foster discussion it seems.