I have no issue with the core concepts of spam prevention, I didn't elaborate on that much because ethics us the principle focus if kine here, to keep it on a social engineering outlook.

I purposefully asked people to make up their own minds.

I feel if people read the comments from just the ones I focused on in this article we could all come to a rational conclusion that perhaps there is a conflict of interest at hive watchers.

The latter solution is to bring up the concerns about @quackwatch and @adm and where the funding is coming from that could potentially cause the public forum, where man kind discusses his affairs, to be moderated in a way that would lead to users on the quackwatch "list" being flagged simply for their views on public policy and informed consensus.

The list is something that is usually considered a threat to some conservatives in the United States to name 75 million potential hive users.

P.S. if there is a conflict of interest at hivewatchers, with a left leaning bias, the community would be interested in knowing that, just so they can make an informed decision that the definition of spam could be left leaning. Most public news broadcasters have a statement about their political views exactly this reason.

In the modern day, in such a divided world, full transparency goes a long way if you want people to trust you.

let's not forget, I was the one who had the heavy accusations made against me of Racism, Xenophobia, Misogyny and fake covid misinformation.