You do realize these accounts asked to be "censored", right? It's amazing to me how often this story gets twisted while the block producers who were actually involved in protecting peoples' property know the real story (and even submitted themselves to arbitration for acting quickly to protect the property because ECAF was moving too slowly). That property was provably demonstrated cryptographically as belonging to the accounts which asked to be added to the blacklist. You act as if some dude just randomly decided to censor some random accounts. Property was taken by thieves and the victims used the capacity of a governed blockchain to temporarily blacklist those accounts until something could be done in the future to retrieve their property (most likely with a fully-functioning arbitration system along with a referendum to put in an accepted constitution in place of the interim constitution).

A governed blockchain as concept isn't "centralized" even if in the beginning interim systems are used to get off the ground. If you think actual censorship of anyone other than a provable thief would be possible on a public blockchain, then you may not understand how this all works. The blacklist done on EOS could be done today on Steem just the same if witnesses decided to not process transactions from specific accounts. There is no "Arbitrator" code, just an agreement within the interim constitution to accept arbitration. That's okay not to like arbitration or ricardian contracts or any number of other things that make EOS unique, but please don't throw around the "It's centralized" argument when it's a DPOS system functioning very similar to BitShares and Steem.

Again, I'm a witness on Steem and a block producer on EOS via eosDAC. What you're saying doesn't match the actual software involved or how it was used to protect property. To make false claims about a blockchain you don't like without understanding is a sign of crypto tribalism.