It is fully available in published format, it just requires one press a button.

'published' implies full access alongside other published items. If I publish a book via a publisher, I am not going to accept it being put behind a hidden door in the shop's bookshelf just because someone else decides it should be because they have more money than me.

That's not your choice, the community curates content as they wish.

That's all well and good in theory, but it's not 'the community' as some kind of perfect, altruistic and balanced entity. What is actually occurring is that those with the most money have the capacity to limit the reach of specific posts and publishers with impunity. The decision is currently not based on merit, but rather on wallet size. If 40+ people in the community decide that something should not be hidden, it may make no difference because one single voter with more wallet size disagrees. Democracy doesn't work that way, oligarchy does. Your position here smacks, ironically, of a communist dictator who decrees that 'the people have spoken' when in truth it was actually just one individual speaking who holds an unbalanced amount of power in the system. Yes, it is possible for the rest of the community to rally around those who are unfairly treated, but the system itself contains no specific facility or that and that is why I suggested to include one in my post on the topic.

I am aware that Dan has specifically included some kind of conflict resolution system into EOS, so it is obviously not just me that has a concern - though I don't yet know the details of that.

Obviously it's not any less available because the user is presented with a warning instead of the content directly.

As already stated, marketing theory and practise makes clear that visibility is king in many cases. Information system theory shows the same in terms of human- computer interaction. The human visual cortex is virtually hardwired in many people to be drawn to shiny things - sad but true.

You cannot argue that they lose money when the rewards are still getting voted on, the author didn't lose money, they didn't get all the rewards they were expecting because people voted against them.

They do literally lose money since payouts are directly reduced due to downvotes, as I understand - they also get less payout due to less visibility and thus less downvotes. That's fine for validly downvoted posts, but that is not what I am highlighting.