This is what the focus should be. If not, this place is no different than Steemit and calling it 'censorship resistant' is about as Orwellian as you can get. All that term does is devalue true censorship resistance.
There is no argument. Silencing someone's voice you don't like, makes you personally as weak as you can possibly achieve, but it brings down the entire community as well.
Echo chambers are Dysgenic.
My intention presently is to create HPS proposals as outlined in the OP so that the community effects complete governance of censorship through the API level #irredeemables list mechanism.
It is an affront to all of us that @joe.public has been arbitrarily silenced for his opposition to Bernie. "To learn who rules over you, just learn who you are not allowed to criticize.", or words to that affect. As best I can ascertain from how the #irredeemables list is applied, our ruler is Bernie. @themarkymark is either just a bot, or totally reliable as a minion to Bernie, whose incessant spam has been the source of all of the accounts on the list - because they opposed Bernie.
As far as I know #irredeemables list has not been used otherwise than to censor those that opposed Bernie's spam. It's the reason it was created, to censor @fulltimegeek, and the only reason postulated for @joe.public's presence on it now.
I agree completely.
See you in Valhalla!