The premise of that argument against centralization is that silencing people for "hate speech" is a bad thing, rusk. If he'd thought it was good to silence people for "hate speech", or expected his readers to, then it would be an argument in favor of centralization, not against it.

My point Kragen was kind of the inverse of that. Not so much that the argument for censorship was strengthened but moreso what the human condition did with those provileges.

But the example given is quite literal. He described the inevitable development now being sold as "progress" or "maturity" when business takes a central position. This isn't rocket science.

It is an argument about who set the bound of acceptable speech if you are more precise.