[ossyrial]

> Moderation is what happens here on HN: Admins have some policies to keep the conversation on track, users voluntarily submit to them.

What do you mean by users voluntarily submitting to these policies? This distinction seems key in your argument, but I don't see what alternatives to submitting I have here, making it involuntary, right?

[Canada]

No, you miss the point.

If HN decided to ban all posts about Donald Trump that is moderation. Users voluntarily submit to this policy by participating in the site, and if they do not, they will be banned.

If the State of California required that all web sites run from their state are REQUIRED to ban all posts about Donald Trump, that is censorship.

Moderation is "your house, your rules" while censorship is someone else imposing their rules in your house.

Do you see what I'm saying? When France is talking about "moderation" of Telegram, what they actually mean is censorship.

[JoeAltmaier]

A pedantic point, which typically argues around the real point. When somebody egregiously violates norms of public discourse with rabble-rousing, slander, deliberate lies and obfuscation, it's reasonable to limit their message's reach with some rules. When they continue despite warnings, then something more has to be done.

Call it what you like; this all had a history and a progression. Not arbitrary or unfair.

[ossyrial]

Thanks, I see and agree.