Thanks. We fight all abuse equally, irrespective of the size of the account. The general idea that we fight small stakeholders is because the largest abuse operators regularly remove most of their acquired rewards/stake and split what they have across hundreds if not thousands of accounts. So we always end up with this visual representation of a small account when in reality if you add them up you end up with a fairly large stake in many cases. For part of the abuse fighting we 'borrow' large accounts that aren't fully using their downvotes in order to be able to restore the funds back to the reward pool.

Downvotes are intended because the final evaluation of content is meant to be a combination of up and down curation. In this case I'm not writing anything that's intended to offend anyone (although it might) but I know for a fact there's an account that throws a tiny downvote on most things I post. I can respect that person's decision to curate how they see fit.

.. why should the bees within a hive fight against each other (for example because of different opinions) instead to use their stings to defend the hive together against their enemies? :)

That's the great thing about Hive; there is no single definition of an enemy because we are decentralized. What I see as an enemy won't be what you see as one and neither of those will be what whomever reads our comments will see. All we can do is convey our vision through documentation and other means and leverage collaboration to arrive at some semblance of cohesion within decentralization.