They should listen to Ghost users and admins and act on it.

They choose to label you as someone who is creating "dissent" and silence you.

Yet they say:

"We set Ghost up as non-profit foundation so that it would always be true to its users, rather than shareholders or investors."

I'm starting to think that marketing products as open-source introduces a liability:

> Open-Source Myth: Despite being marketed as open-source, Ghost restricts open discussion in forums, often editing or removing user posts, and provides no clarity on upcoming releases or feature development...

OSS has come to be associated with an incredibly high-bar of community engagement and an expectation for open and transparent participation. Maybe the term has just gathered too much baggage at this point to be worth shouting about when talking to the general public.