I have explained many times, but you may not have read my words. The dictionary definition of 'censor' as a verb includes:

: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable

source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

The definition of Suppress includes:

: to inhibit the growth or development of

source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress

The purpose of downvotes in the context of the reward pool is to inhibit the growth of the post (and the account that made the post) - ergo, downvoting is suppression, by design.

If you object to content based on it's message rather than because it violates legal rules on copyright or other such reasons, and you downvote it, then according to dictionary definitions in English, you are participating in censorship. Many people don't pay attention to the etymology of language and so often don't appreciate the full meaning of the words they are using. This often results in pointless arguments that last years because people don't realise they are talking about different things.

When downvoting happens for ideological reasons, the growth of the account involved is limited in terms of reach and economic ability to grow in terms of content creation and production quality. Hive currently allows people to downvote to make that happen and I am just pointing out that according to the meaning of the word 'censorship', this activity is censorship. I am also pointing out that from a PR and marketing perspective, this activity hurts Hive .

People generally want valuable content generation, which includes intelligent debate and engagement when people disagree on important topics. The irony of certain individuals downvoting without comment or engagement and then even having the audacity to say they are downvoting due to a lack of engagement from other people is not lost on large numbers of observers who may not comment publicly for their own reasons.