I agree with the author of this article. HN is a moderated community, which means that various social mores are enforced through behavioral nudges, through vot

I agree with the author of this article. HN is a moderated community, which means that various social mores are enforced through behavioral nudges, through voting and flagging, and through ostracism of those who refuse to comply. These constraints upon speech offer a net positive value for participation that a forum of unconstrained speech cannot match. I participate in HN because this forum's guidelines refuse the precepts of unconstrained freedom of speech, resulting in a healthy and vibrant community. If HN were an unconstrained speech forum, as many other forums are, then I would not desire to be part of this community — my participation would be of net negative value, and any controversial view I hold would be immediately overrun by abuse, personal attacks, and even doxxing. The first full page of comments on this post are rejecting the viewpoint that a decentralized web would be harmful. I appreciate the cognitive dissonance of such views being posted here in such stridency and quantity, and each other time I see it occur. The passionate participation by those who believe in unconstrained speech demonstrates, through their own participation, that compromising one's idealism for the sake of social inclusion is considered acceptable — even when their viewpoint as presented indicates otherwise.