This is an internally flawed argument in my eyes. Your need for a downvote functionality is offset by someone else's need to not have it.
When taken to absurd extremes it becomes clearer. Suppose you demanded the right to imprison people, because of a deep need to express yourself in such a way, and swore that your neighbourhood would thank you for your decisions. And reasoned that since you're a responsible person, you would never abuse it so others can trust you. Also you hope that since everyone will be granted equal rights, other people will not go off the rails imprisoning everyone.
I think the flaw with the "stifled feelings" here is this: if the playing field is even (as it is with Steem - everyone is subject to the same set of rules), there can be no talk of censorship per se. No one is really getting censored. It's more a hindrance of a missing and perhaps very valuable functionality.
Having said all that, I totally agree with you that Steemit would benefit from a proper downvote option, simply because negative feedback is productive, awakening and valuable. Of course it can be abused, but so can the positive one.
It needs to be figured out well and tested first, but I'm pretty sure that in the long run, it would strengthen the community, filter out a lot of garbage and add to the value and perception of Steem.
So all in all, I agree with the conclusion of your post, but not exactly with the reasoning you provided.
All I hope for is that reasonable behavior (i.e. not going off the rails) will statistically prevail. I suggest to at least give it a try and revert if we conclude that it causes more harm than good.
Tools for giving feedback to the author are these: the upvotes, the comments and the flag. The downvote option is supposed to be give feedback not to the author but only to those who have upvoted: "Hey guys, we've spent too much of our limited funds on this single post or comment".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I might've misunderstood the "flag" somehow, I thought it was intended to mark content that people consider inappropriate, and not provide tangible feedback to the author.
What I had in mind was a system where negative votes offset positive ones. That way you can properly review stuff, a bit like in real life.
Also forgive my bluntness in the comment - I didn't mean this in a condescending way. What occured to me is that having a strong feeling about something that cannot be expressed is not the equivalent of censorship, but a technical limitation. Discussion on implementation of it is another story, this is where the whole grind of blockchain consensus is at.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In that sense the flag provides both functionalities: it warns other readers and gives feedback to the author so that they have a chance to fix the post.
That's indeed a good way to look at it.
You have a good point here. This "technical limitation" does not mute you (as you can still write a comment saying: "I think this post is overpaid") but it makes you powerless even though theoretically you have the power. I don't really know how to call this state.
After doing some introspection I think this is what disturbs me the most: we remove part of our freedom assuming it will have bad consequences before this fear was proven to materialize in real life. For me, limiting our freedom is a last resort, not a preemptive action aimed to yield to our fears.
But the biggest paradox here is that currently you are able to do what is feared by those who oppose the downvote option. You are just invited to do collateral damage to reach your goal.
This logic is completely beyond my understanding: even if we assume that lowering somebody's payout is damaging, they prefer you to do more damage (by using the flag), than give you an option to do less damage (by giving you a downvote tool).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit