Intimidation might be used to effect censorship but Intimidation by itself is not a form of Censorship, in fact, intimidation is usually used to force people to say or do things that they don't want to. Censorship cannot happen if I can click a button and it reveals whatever was censored and censorship is completely redundant when you can post freely what you want regardless of how people curate your content. Intimidation is equally redundant becasuse intimidation and threats can come from all forms, not only downvoting but explicitly through acts and deeds, and "ruining reputation" is clearly not censorship, but a metric that Curates your account in the community. Saying that the material is not affected is basically admitting there is no censorship, and vacating your position is demonstrated by moving onto arguing about the reputation as if the account holder is responsible for only the good curation to his content, reek of entitlement much?
If the equivalent of steemit(not steem because there is no hidden things on steem) censorship existed on youtube or anywhere else it would never be considered censorship, the only reason it's considered censorship here is because people have distorted what censorship is and used that loaded concept to play off peoples emotions and reactionary stances instead of speaking with precision and specifity so as not to create confusion or distort the facts and lead people to interpret Curation as Censorship. Is it Censorship when people downvote things on youtube? Or is censorship when the comments get deleted? Or you consider censorship both and believe that only Porn and Threats or Plagiarism and Spam should be "censored", or not even those? Fuck that I don't want to debate censorship with someone that speaks at length like an idiot about things they ought to know better, like SteemIt being Steem.
BTW, nobody can stop you from posting, you can post with -10000000 reputation.