On the surface, Steemit appears to be a hero for free speech advocates. Finally, we have a network that allows anyone to share content, so long as that content does not run afoul of local and international laws. This has triggered a huge migration from mainstream channels like YouTube onto the Steemit network.
But dig a little deeper and you will find that not everything is as advertised. While the vast majority of Steemit users will find no issue with the platform, the architecture that enables anyone to flag or downvote content facilitates de-facto censorship.
The Steemit originators envisioned that "the people" would self-police their own. As noble as that experiment was, however, it has actual drawbacks. Many people, including myself, have triggered downvotes for completely arbitrary or even discriminatory reasons.
It certainly runs counter to the initial hopes of an open source network. Instead of centralized censorship, we now have decentralized authoritarianism. Thus, your content is unlikely to be censored so long as your opinions reflect the majority Steemian consensus.
But what is that consensus?