I tend to believe they knew upfront the pitfalls of the stake based system. The mining thread (imo) seems to bear out that they wanted the most stake so they could control the system they were creating. Enough that they had a second mining event, cancelling the first as they found themselves not coming into first due to technical difficulties. It isn't difficult to foresee that those with the largest stake could do whatever they wanted within the system parameters to those with lesser stake.

I abbreviated the second quote, as it addressed not only your points, but others who may come here with bad feelings on the upcoming changes. It can all be boiled down to we have the freedom to conduct ourselves how we wish, pre hardfork and post. It is a matter of choice if one allows such things to dictate their behavior.

I do believe that it is possible that this will chase off yet more of the user base, but financially I am not sure it will be harmful to the ecosystem here, and can even envision scenarios where it could be beneficial.

I can appreciate that you (and others) are not fans of the changes. I too am not a fan, despite the affect for me being lessened due to no longer blogging. I will be curious to see if enough leave due to what they believe censorship from flags if they would start their own site of freedom. I have wondered for years now as the complaints of censorship have grown why such a place has not already been put in place, although I suspect in its own way it would resemble an echo chamber too.

Just how much influence does hostile flagging have, and who's done the cost/benefit analysis on it.

This is a good question, however it comes back to the stake based system. If those with the most stake don't want a cost/benefit analysis on it, or have done one and even see that lower ranks will be casualties and are ok with that, then it will be so. In a stake based system, freedom is based on your stake.