You start off your article claiming that articles about anarchy will not drive traffic to the site, and may drive traffic away. Instead of presenting numbers or evidence of such. You cite your feelings, which does not show anything. I feel that people would prefer to go to an uncensored site as opposed to a censored one. I just made an argument as convincing as yours.

I start off my article with an explanation of my personal motivation for writing the article. I do not have, nor did I claim to have, any hard evidence that this is hurting Steemit; however, I do know that when a platform becomes a sounding board for primarily one ideal or topic, it will be branded as such. For example, I would not read PC Magazine to find tips on gardening. Along the same vein, I would not read the Economist for news from a marxist POV.

You then make up words words like anarchos, right before you say that you’re not trying to be combative. I’m not trying to be combative, but I’m going to call you a feeler. You then claim to be playing devil’s advocate which means that you don’t really believe what you’re writing.

The term anarcho is simply a shortened version of anarcho-capitalist, and the intention was certainly not to be mocking. The definition of Devil’s Advocate is a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments. My personal opinion is irrelevant to my role as Devil’s Advocate, though I will disclose that my beliefs are pretty firmly in the Libertarian camp.

Some of your article says we need to do this or we need to do that. It’s not clear who this we is.

I disagree. In every section of the article that includes the term “we”, it should be clear to an astute reader who “we” is.

The meat of your post then is an argument against anarchy, which provides no barring on your original claim. For example, horoscopes are invalid, but I see no reason why they would take away from use of steemit. Steemit is set up to make sure that the exposure that horoscopes see will be proportional to people’s interest.

That is the purpose of this article, to argue against anarchy. As I stated above, the opening paragraphs were not a claim, but a statement of my personal motivation, which does, indeed, provide bearing for my article.

It also is clear from your writing style that you have just read people’s posts on the internet, and as such don’t know what you are talking about.

I’m not being condescending, but I want to put things in terms you understand. I feel that feelers need to read more books.

While this is a personal attack, not an argument, I will address it anyways. I have indeed researched anarchy to find potential answers to the problems I see. These problems were certainly based on posts I read, but I was not satisfied with any of the material I researched that there was a proper solution to them under an anarchist system. If you saw fit to use your superior education on the topic to actually debate some of the points in my article, maybe we could go somewhere with this. Now, I am not being condescending here, but I will now say something condescending: go read my article in its entirety, look up the hard words that you glossed over, and make an attempt to understand what was actually said. When you’ve accomplished this, call upon your vast and superior intellectual understanding of the topic and let’s debate, constructively, the points in the article; not the semantics of the first paragraph. Thanks!