All too true. As I said, I have limited information.
However, there are potential situations where an account compromising the integrity of the platform, for example, that might provide nominal cause to censor.
Given what I know about Steemit, I cannot conceive of a means of making an account impervious to various mechanisms that can prevent use of the account. Not only the frontend is necessary to login and post, as the blockchain requires accounts to possess adequate SP to transact.
I have myself shown others that censorship of posts did not occur on Steemit, but that does not mean I don't think accounts can't be prevented from posting at all.
I, considering the source, expected that, if censorship, in the form of preventing an account from being accessed, had actually occurred, first, it was likely justified, and second, was also singular. Further, as I am not expecting Stinc to acquiesce in it's own destruction, and to allow accounts to be used to attack the platform itself, I could see no reason to object. Last, neither did I have confidence in the report.
For these reasons, and my own general ignorance (by choice) of coding, I failed to demand rigorous proof, or give it more consideration.
It could well have not happened, and I mention it only as a caution to not expect inviolability. I don't think it's possible to preclude the potential to censor on a website. Steemit has various mechanisms that potentiate control of the ability of accounts to operate, and, if there is nominal cause, I expect that those mechanisms will be employed - even if it takes a Hard Fork to do it.
Singular parties caused the DAO to fork, and have deeply impacted the crypto community through other systemic challenges, such as Mt. Gox, so it is not impossible that similar threats will be faced by Steemit.
I certainly hope you are right.