> it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”. Letting users discover when their content is removed is not "letting everyone in".

> it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”. Letting users discover when their content is removed is not "letting everyone in". You can have both moderation and transparency. They're not mutually exclusive, and many people will alter their behavior in a group after being told their content was removed. They're less likely to change when they're not told. For those who persist, consider what Jonathan Rauch says about speaking in a public forum, > The person you're talking to isn't the person you're directly talking to. You're not going to be able to persuade that hardcore LGBT left-wing activist that your point of view is correct. The person you're talking to is [the one overhearing your conversation]... They're seeing you sound reasonable, and the other person sound dogmatic and censorious... [1] In other words, don't compromise your values to deal with a minority of very persistent people with whom most people don't find alignment anyway. When you do compromise your values, that person will shift to attack you on the basis of censorship, and you've just given them the very platform they needed to gain followers. At that point you're no longer the open discussion forum to whatever degree you claimed. So you can't convince everyone of your viewpoint. So what? Leave it at that. Accepting that someone may not agree with you right away, or possibly ever, is the grown up thing to do. After all, in some cases it may be your mind that gets changed. To the extent you don't do this, you are your own worst enemy. And when you can see it through, you will have become your best advocate. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s