Yet you proclaim people as being "censorship loving" for affecting content placement on Hive. For doing exactly what you claim to support.
I am saying that in principle I do not have a problem with downvoting for a variety of reasons. There are many scammers and spammers here who will try to take reward payouts and this is a problem for the value of Hive and also the attractiveness of Hive as a source of quality content. The rules surrounding what is plagiarism and what is spam could potentially even be hard coded into the blockchain to remove the human element involved in downvoting or removing them.
When it comes to downvoting content based only on differences of opinion - whether that be about the level of rewards involved or just thinking differently - people need to carefully weigh up the pros and cons of doing so. Small downvotes to express sentiment can add up and then the community can truly speak as a consensus if they want to remove larger amounts of rewards from posts. This is what Dan from 3speak was highlighting and advocating for - more downvotes, but on a smaller scale, with no nuking from one account deliberately destroying other accounts.
Such downvoting, when the account holder has not broken any community rules, is reasonable to me. What is not reasonable is people with larger amounts of stake deciding on their own that entire accounts are to be nuked, regardless of what they say or do. Sure, the blockchain currently allows that to be done, but even since the earliest days of Steem it has generally been understood and agreed that this is not a good idea, either from the perspective of community spirit or from a public PR perspective. The main public sentiment about steem and hive has always been that it is a pyramid scheme run by scammers. That might have changed a bit now, but that was always what I saw on social channels from influencers and others. This is because POB favours circle jerks and all the other issues we know so well. If individual stakeholders go around nuking those who are doing well on the platform, it just reinforces the image that POB is a sham and that there is only proof of wallet. This leads to a situation where investors who might have been interested in POB, instead just see a platform that rewards and promotes the content that is preferred by the wealthiest people - which is EXACTLY the problem with FB and MSM etc. - so the key selling points of this Web 3.0 platform fall apart rapidly. No real decentralisation, no real POB, no real change from Web 2.0. This was all explained in the show that you were on and generally agreed upon by all parties present.
If you want me to say it another way - I am saying that I am offering the suggestion that this behaviour is not inspiring to anyone, gives people a sense of being able to be dominated at any moment - despite what literally hundreds of other community members want.. And to top it off it is being done with a sense of aggressive tone, no feedback, ridicule and even threats of physical abuse in the case of one of them. No rational person considers this 'social' or a good PR look for Hive. I know for 100% sure that the majority of people I have personally tried to introduce to Hive have seen this kind of thing and just walked away.
A SOCIAL Network requires SOCIAL skills - not Gulag skills and a big wallet. It's time to evolve.