Thanks for responding here. This topic has gone on for many posts and probably over 1000 comments by now, so I don't expect you to have read it all.. but one key point is that in English, the word 'censor' does not only mean 'total deletion'.

Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Source: Mirriam Webster

So censoring also includes actions that suppress content deliberately.

The same dictionary defines 'Suppress' as:

transitive verb
1 : to put down by authority or force : subdue suppress a riot
2 : to keep from public knowledge: such as
a : to keep secret
b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of suppress the test results
3a : to exclude from consciousness
b : to keep from giving vent to : check suppressed her anger
4 obsolete : to press down
5a : to restrain from a usual course or action suppress a cough
b : to inhibit the growth or development of

Definitions 1, 2, 2a, 3a, 5a and 5b all result from downvoting (especially downvoting to zero).

Big downvotes mean that content which the brains of the Hive community have specifically valued and wanted others to see have been 'put down by force' and possibly kept from public knowledge, since the public will not know about something which is almost invisible - despite it's continued existence. Proof of Brain, in the minds of many/most people is intended to enable the wisdom of the crowd to elevate ideas/things for the purpose of them becoming public knowledge and for the public to be made conscious of them. This is similar to how news editors either publish or hold back ideas from the public for their own reasons.

Whether anyone agrees with my points here or not, I think they will find it hard to disagree with the applicability of definition 5b in the context of downvoting on Hive, since downvoting definitely inhibits the growth or development of the idea and author of the idea within the post in question. I appreciate that 'post rewards are not final until 7 days is up', but the reality is that posts on Hive gain reach and followers BEFORE the 7 days is up and downvoting cancels that out. We could say that the posts do not have their 'correct' POB level of reach until everyone has voted that is going to vote - including the downvotes.. However, it doesn't change the fact that the downvote has inhibited the growth of the post an the author.

Most people agree that censorship is a good thing on Hive where it prevents and inhibits the growth of spammers and plagiarisers. However, what is being addressed by this thread are those actions of downvote censoring that are done not for these reasons, but instead for personal reasons that may or may not be shared - but which have no justification.

It's clear that such downvoting can be performed by corrupt state actors, corporate criminals seeking to hide their crimes - having already bought off already being in cahoots with mainstream media corporations (not unlikely in many cases since the same 2/3 investment funds now hold controlling shares of ALL major corporations in ALL industries). This is the main reason why I and many others feel/know how important it is to minimise downvoting to clearly defined situations that clearly harm Hive - since otherwise it is the downvoting that harms Hive's reputation and the sentiment of many in the community.

Other than the language issue here, I think that the main difference between our positions is that I am looking at a broader range of implications that result from downvoting and the possible effects on Hive's longevity, growth potential and PR moving forward. Hive is already known as a place where censors operate among influencers in the free speech movement, so it is essential to take some action to address this asap if Hive's primary selling point is to be taken seriously.

The decentralisation is important and there isn't much that I can do to stop big whales coming in and totally dominating - but we have literally already gone through this with Steem and the result was a lot of work leading to Hive. To me it makes sense to take all possible action to limit the possibility of similar occurring again.

The blockchain 'law' allows for a hostile takeover and we can fork again - which is not great but is an accepted feature of the design of blockchains in general. However, Hive includes certain rules that directly influence all of this and which can be changed relatively easily. The key one that I see is the paramter that determines the amount of free downvotes that each account has. The number was introduced and then never adjusted following community feedback - personally, I see the lowering of this number as the simplest possible way to influence the situation without requiring much effort. The result is that power to censor through inhibition of growth of accounts is significantly reduced, which should increase decentralisation in some senses (or at least the perception of it), while easing up the tensions in the chain and improving the public image of Hive.

Since you haven't commented on this aspect, maybe you can add some thoughts in light of what I have shared here?

Cheers!