So a lot of this is wrong but irrelevant to this so I won't touch it. The main thing you seem to be missing though is that the subreddit is not meant to be a n

So a lot of this is wrong but irrelevant to this so I won't touch it. The main thing you seem to be missing though is that the subreddit is not meant to be a neutral ground for people to compare and discuss ideas. It's a place to get concrete, consensus- and literature-based answers from people with real experience and practice at history. Having people in the comments presenting ahistorical information entirely outside of scholarly consensus only detracts from that goal. So even if you consider this _only_ a power-vs-speech thing, there's still a strong argument that moderation is the correct step. When conversations detract from the stated purpose of the community they are restricted. Same as right here actually.