Comment by welshwelsh
2 years ago
You make a good point about on-topic moderation. But I think this misses something.
Rejecting a cell microbiology paper from a computer science journal is not an attempt to suppress the paper. If anything, it is of benefit to the paper, since publishing it in the correct journal will increase it's visibility to the relevant audiences.
In contrast, content moderation, particularly in political subreddits is often motivated by tribalism and a desire to suppress particular viewpoints. It's true that these people could just go to another subreddit, but by the same logic reporters in Russia could just go to another country.
The effect of this type of moderation is that it creates tribes or "communities" of people who have similar opinions and never encounter opposing viewpoints.
Moderating based on topic is different than censorship based on viewpoint. If an argument is allowed but it's counterargument is not, that's censorship, not moderation.
I agree tribal echo chambers is more of a problem than moderating to keep conversation on topic, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was censorship because the people in these echo chambers still have access to opposing viewpoints if they choose to go looking for them. This contrasts with journalists in Russia “just going to another country”, their views still won’t be available to their intended audience.