"A definition quote is not evidence."
Then evidence does not exist.
"Provide evidence of this"
Ironically, then (because you deny a definition by a law dictionary is evidentiary), I will point to debanking, banning, and blacklisting across institutional hierarchies as mechanisms that use financial harm to pre-emptively prevent speech - exactly as what you have claimed cannot be done on the blockchain. People that cannot be here cannot post here. You can just deny this is happening, as you prefer, but it happens just the same. You can say 'Just make your own bank, media, platform.' These are ways to overcome censorship, not evidence of lack of censorship, however.
We engage, which builds not only our understanding and rapport, unlikely as that may seem, but Hive. Good.
"You have not done it so yet."
No U! isn't an argument.
"...on many different posts published by other users..."
I do engage people.
"I find it entertaining."
We are in agreement. I do not recall previously agreeing with you. I am glad to now. We don't have to agree, in fact cannot agree on everything, to beneficially engage. It is because we don't agree we can, and that is the basis of social media.
Edit: I am pressed for time, as I must detect my thumbs with a hammer.