That's correct, both are equally allowed (as opposed to forbidden) as there are no forum rules in place that serve to protect the community from being harmed repeatedly in either of those ways, and the community's only means of holding sources accountable regarding harm reduction is posting their experiences, which are easily drowned out via shill/alt account posts (impossible to detect effectively even by a company as big as Amazon, so you're not able to do so nor expected to).
You have your own agenda of course but I'm sure you understand the basic approach of harm reduction. It is strange for you to imply MESO is somehow a harm promotion forum.
This is generally the tactic taken by opponents of harm reduction (who take the approach of forbidding or prohibiting drug use).
MESO doesn't go around "forbidding" or prohibiting people from taking unacceptable health risks, legal risks, financial risks, social risks, etc. "You are forbidden from using trenbolone!" "You are forbidden from using DNP!" "You are forbidden from going on a cycle longer than 12 weeks!" "You are forbidden from using AAS if you don't monitor your health!" "You are forbidden from using that source!"
Rather, MESO hopes that the website and forums can provide information that will help visitors manage risk and minimize physical/social/legal/financial harms.
As far as the underground black market, the community's sharing of experiences is vital to minimizing the associated risks and the central component to the forum's harm reduction approach. This should not be trivialized.
With regard to the source cheerleaders, I have a lot to say about that.
MESO supports members leaving positive and negative reviews/feedback/complaints. But really how many posts does it take to leave a positive review? One or two? Maybe 5 max followups if anyone has questions. Anything beyond that suggests other motives and should be questioned.
So yeah, the motivations and agendas of the people leaving the reviews can sometimes be suspect.
I'll unpack more later...