Fist, you say downvoting is suppression of speech. I don't think you can really support that assertion. Then, you leap from downvoting being suppression to suppression being censorship. I don't think you can really support that, either.

I downvote a lot of copy/pasted porn spam from a handful of users. I can't prevent them from posting it. I can't prevent anyone from tipping their posts our counter-voting my downvotes. Even if their reputations fall below 0, the content is still there. Further, HIVE isn't the only platform for speech.

Steemit is still around, but there, we faced actual censorship as blocks were altered and the frontend blocked access to content Sun didn't like. That kind of real suppression doesn't happen here. We want our blockchain to be immutable.

Blurt is experimenting with a downvote-free system. We'll see if it works better. HIVE was built the way it works intentionally. Maybe it isn't the best option in the long run. We'll see. But claiming it is "censorship" when you dislike how it works isn't really an argument.

I don't know much about LBRY, but they do have another system entirely separate from ours. Maybe it's better.

My point is:

1. Your content is still yours regardless of votes and reputation. No one can delete it.
2. Frontends offer myriad ways to access the chain, no matter what happens to your reputation or the votes content receives.
3. Different chains allow us to find what really works best.
4. Your conflation of downvotes with suppression is unsupported
5. None of the points above negate the reality of downvote abuse, which I do find distasteful, even though I object to hyperbolic claims of censorship.