I feel like you're just ignoring half my words, so I'll start by repeating them: the primary ideological goal for the social media portion of Hive is freedom from censorship. You seem to be arguing that we should apply some form of censorship to one of our users, because he's a huge barrier to adoption of the platform. What you seem to fail to understand, is that from our point of view, censorship freedom is more important than just platform growth. When you argue for centralized censorship, you're directly arguing against our core beliefs.

This is what the largest stakeholders here mostly believe, from what I know. I'm not contending that this is the view of the world at large. To anyone paying attention, it should be clear that there has lately been a movement to increasing censorship on most centralized platforms.  Large stakeholders here generally believe that the purpose of this platform, in part, is to fight this form of centralized censorship. 

Instead of centralized censorship, the platform allows for individuals to individually control the information they receive, by muting people they don't want to be bothered with. All your arguments continue to ignore acknowledging this as a possible solution to the problem you posit. I'm a bit confused at this point why you continue to ignore this option, even though it's been mentioned to you by several people, from what I can tell.