Effectively, yes. However, assuming they implemented something with (and I can't believe I'm using this term) checks-and-balances, and also didn't give reader-investors too much voting power, then maybe it works out alright? I have no clue.
The only real rebuttal to your point is that journalists have effectively always been censored, to a degree, as the market so demands. Assange is perhaps the least censored, if not totally censor-free, but I'm not sure his model of censorship-free journalism is particularly scalable.
The only real rebuttal to your point is that journalists have effectively always been censored, to a degree, as the market so demands. Assange is perhaps the least censored, if not totally censor-free, but I'm not sure his model of censorship-free journalism is particularly scalable.