I only ever seem to see this argument as a justification for censorship that has already occurred, as in I was “just doing my job” and following the rules on what we’re allowed to think. Where do I cast my vote that I think this kind of moderation is inhumane toward all participants and that I would prefer to participate in communities where we discuss things instead of supporting the chilling effect of Zero Thought Tolerance?
If this is what you believe, why do you participate in the heavily-moderated HN instead of barely-moderated alternatives like 4chan or 8chan? If it's because you think there's a better standard of conversation here, then I'd argue that's not unrelated to the moderation that happens.
I didn't realize I had to choose between communities. How do you know I don't already participate in those too?
e: At least when I disagree with somebody on an imageboard they don't go through my user profile and downvote every comment I've made in the past day like somebody just did to me here =p
I guess it would weaken my point if you were posting on this subject on both HN and 4chan now. My point was intended as a rhetorical one to highlight that people generally post to HN because they're looking for a certain kind of audience or quality of discussion that you won't find anywhere near as consistently on less moderated places like 4chan.
Yep, I do participate in HN because I find value in its unique audience and discussion quality, and I do think the moderation is necessary to maintain those unique qualities. I also appreciate the enrichment and access to totally-new ideas that I get from existing in other worlds with differing norms like 4chan/9chan. HN is a well-maintained and enjoyable bubble, but still a bubble. They supplement each other more than they compete, and I feel more able to tolerate the moderated world thanks to the less-moderated ones.
