It's not functionally indistinguishable in numerous ways and circumstances. If you disagree exemplify how someone can STOP or SUPPRESS someone expressing themselves by harassing them.
I'll put this here:
You seem think that downvoting someone is harassment, yet nothing stops the individual being harassed from expressing themselves while being downvoted, so in effect You think they are being harassed but they clearly are free to express themselves regardless of downvoting. You also seem to think that someone booing someone else is no different from censorship even though someone booing does not stop someone from speaking WHILE the other individual is booing them, even if it's to the point of being considered harassing, they can still express themselves WHILE the other person is harassing them.
Specifically for differences of opinion.
If your rep is -9 then it is extremely difficult (nearly impossible) to participate in any form of discussion with the broader steem community. I've even tried to direct-link to their comments and the link does not work.
It's de facto censorship.
AND, I'M EVEN AFRAID TO MENTION THEIR NAMES BECAUSE I FEAR BEING TARGETED/HARRASED/DOWNVOTED BY UNREASONABLE PEOPLE, SO THERE IS CLEARLY A "CHILLING-EFFECT" WHICH IS, I WOULD ARGUE, PART OF THE INTENT OF THE DOWNVOTERS.
If nobody can hear you over the incessant air-horns, then you are de facto censored.
Do you think that people who disagree should (EITHER) express their disagreement with reasonable words (OR) simply avoid each other (use the "mute" function)?
Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit