That's exactly the point of this whole place, there are no guardian roles at all. Anyone who wants can copy this entire place with almost no technical knowledge, they can figure out how to distribute the initial stake and start their own version, and tweak it how they want, and if they want, they can only clone the condenser (the front end) as that too is open source and requires close to no tech knowhow, and they can change whatever they want, if they want to remove the option to make content that's rated below a certain threshold initially substituted by a button that once clicked reveals the original content, then they can, and people have done that already. They have cloned the chain and removed the option from the base layer (chain) to downvote, like whaleshares.io, then there are other places that, like busy and partiko, have a completely different front end that doesn't hide things that have negative payouts, and they did it the "hard" way, by making an entirely new frontend, it would be almost trivial to do it the easy way and clone the open source condenser.

I asked you those questions to discuss the merits behind serving certain content to the audience with a warning/caution that it may not be "good", because I think that such a feature is essential to the well being of the platform, it provides a very simple to use mechanism to caution the audience, and even if it is abused, it absolutely does not make it censorship, ever, since no information is unavailable or edited in any way. The whole "who guards the guardians" seemingly tries to avoid that conversation on the false pretext that there are such roles or such roles for the roles (guarding the guardians). Think about it, does the "rated/marked as hidden" feature not offer an overall benefit to the community, and do the downvotes as well not work to offer a check for unabridged abuse, not necessarily things like spam or bad/disturbing /deceitful / harmful content, but behaviors like exclusive self voting which would threaten the health of the overall community and would begin by as a prisoners dilemma, whereby more and more people race to vote only for themselves as there is reprocrisuon for doing so and anyone who is acting otherwise would mean not maximizing/capitulating on a guaranteed steem of profits.. I'm sure these aren't the first time you've stumbled over, these things are explained on a weekly basis it seems, just moments before writing this I ridiculed a retarded individual for trying to make a case that rated as hidden is censorship. People take censorship to mean anything and everything that isn't received positively it seems, they probably have never been actually censored or have witnessed actual censorship, it appears that people will whine, exactly like you have, asserting nil explanation or substance, nonsense like censorship, on a censorship proof platform for eternity. Even if things aren't rated as hidden, @hobo.media will certainly try to say it's demonization and therefore censorship, as if people are entitled to positive votes but not negative ones and rewards are guaranteed as if this isn't a game, but a crowdsourcing milking scheme.