Hi @gank. I'm not exactly clear on your argument here, so please feel free to correct me. The way I see it (under the current situation - that is, when comparing, let's say, Steemit to Facebook) - ALL of the argument of ethics is NULLIFIED (in my opinion) once manipulative tactics are used by the corporations in question. I actually listened to Jack from Twitter on the Joe Rogan show, and OVERALL found his perspective on the censorship issue to be REASONABLY sound at its essence. That is, that he is constantly ADJUSTING the Twitter policies in light of new evidence of what works and what doesn't work, in terms of fairness). After listening to him , I TRULY BELIEVE that his INTENTION is in the right place, and I WOULD support a certain degree of "administrative control" based on the "private property" concept ONLY IF platforms like Twitter, #CA'sbook, etc were not PROVEN to have used (and/or CURRENTLY BE using) algorithms which are POLITICALLY biased, and NOT biased based primarily on protecting the PHYSICAL safety (and basic civil rights) of users. This past week I launched a FORMAL boycott of Facebook, with an final post announcement the commencement of my boycott, and have now begun the process of sending a few minutes daily deleting ALL content I have put up on Facebook over the past decade. This is in line with my argument that these private companies DO NOT have the right now manipulate people. Protecting people's CONSTITUTIONAL rights is okay with me for private organizations, but manipulation is NOT. The right to not be DECEIVED is also a Consititutional right, and at the core of ALL of other basic rights granted by the constitution. Hope this comment is well received, and that I have not misinterpreted your point...