I actually agree in large part with both articles. I thought @ats-david's article had good and important insights, and I thought it offered constructive suggestions - even if it was a bit harsh in tone. @dantheman and @ned are big boys. I'm sure they can manage to separate the tone from the message. I even seem to recall a not dissimilar article by @dragosroua in reference to the 30 day payout limit, which I also thought offered valuable feedback.

I recently reviewed Amazon.com's 14 leadership principles. Principle #1 was to obsess over the customer. Steemit.com needs this sort of feedback in order to have any idea at all what the customer is thinking.

On the other hand, all too many articles here are nothing more than rants that highlight problems (real or imagined) without proposing solutions. Even those posts have value, but if the proportion of them is too high, they will harm the platform.

As a general rule, the solution to speech that we don't like or agree with is often more speech, not to try to shut people up. If someone writes an article that we disagree with, or that we feel lacks context, then we can offer corrections or framing (in a cordial way) so that new users aren't overwhelmed by the negativity.