Well said indeed!

if there is information being disseminated that could harm others, if assumed true, I don't see any harm in having it be challenged by a third party.

I think the challenging aspect is very important. After all, if something is sound, it should stand up and if something isn't sound, folk should wanna know about it. Also I'd like to think that the 'community' would act as that (decentralised and headless) third party....but it doesn't seem to work like that a lot of the time. (Perhaps not with you though :)

And there is the WTF puzzle if/when a 'mainstream'/widely-accepted chunk of info is being disseminated which - in the view of many, and backed up by considerable evidence - could not only harm others, but is prevented from being challenged such that it may be discovered by all if such be the case or not. :D ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Whether or not HIVE should be that party is lock-step with how youtube and facebook regulate and censor their content.

....and raises the ol' question of decentralisation, for Hive, with its XYZ⁺⁵⁰ IQ ;) surely considers itself different from those dinosaurs....and yet similar-looking dynamics do seem to be desired by some who prefer 'dangerous' info to be banished rather than challenged......or so it has seemed to me when thinking about this post in general, and perhaps to you when typing the final para of your comment.

Thanks for taking the time to read and engage with this amorphous, perhaps shadowy, yet, I think, VERY FUCKING REAL, subject on Hive.

🙏