Maybe you misread my intention. I am saying what you are saying. I am just saying if a button exists people will push it. The question is not IF they are censoring (they are), it is CAN they censor (they can). The distinction is that people think that if they prove Person A is not censored even though they say things against Primal that somehow proves Primal isn't censoring people. That is false, the more precise question is: is it possible to censor people? And if so, do not trust that client. We don't disagree, I am just being more precise in pointing out the issue than the Stacker article.