I think it is correct what @antisocialist and others say who point to the positive work of the witnesses mentioned.
At the same time, it is a problem when criticism is not equally taken as positive feedback but as hostile or too provocative from the side of the witnesses. This is also reflected by the superficiality of the many commentators who are generous with praise but hold back with their own thoughts and suggestions either out of ignorance or disinterest or the all-pervasive superficiality.
The reactions of the small users as a whole to the activities of the large stakeholders and their interest group activities (communities) are presumably seen as predominantly confirming, and ultimately they are.
I'm past the time when I actively made suggestions about features and choices, they were all either ignored or taken as "not interesting, not feasible". Since little has changed in my suggestions and I still get no concrete response to questions to the major stakeholders, I see no interest from their side either.
You will only be heard if you show a financial commitment in addition to a publicist approach. Often only the latter is enough, without blogging at all. Of course, this is not decentralised or democratic in the true sense.
I think the chain has anarchical components as it has restricted, controlled and standardised ones. It depends where you look.
So, I think the searching feature on Hive actually needs more attention and better ergonomics and finding results. I am not able to find things here through the searching feature.
Also, the feature "how many eyes" read a publication does not exist. I wonder, why.
There is no feature for guest-commenting, without having a person registering for an own account.
I asked for this features several times: no answers.
RE: STOP VOTING FOR HIVE OLIGARCHY - START VOTING FOR FREE-SPEECH