I fear that many decentralised web projects are designed for censorship resistance not so much because they deliberately want to become hubs for neo-nazis, but rather out of a kind of naive utopian belief that more speech is always better. But I think we have learnt in the last decade that this is not the case. If we want technologies to help build the type of society that we want to live in, then certain abusive types of behaviour must be restricted. Thus, content moderation is needed.

Let's unpack this:

Axiom: a kind of naive utopian belief [exists that asserts] that more speech is always better. But I think we have learnt in the last decade that this is not the case.

False premise. The "naive belief", based on the empirical evidence of history, is that prioritizing the supression of speech to address social issues is the hallmark of authoritarian systems.

Martin also claims "we have learned" something that he is simply asserting as fact. My lesson from the last 3 decades has been that it was a huge mistake to let media ownership be concentrated in the hands of a few. We used to have laws against this in the 90s.

Axiom: By "we" as in "we want", Martin means the community of likeminded people, aka the dreaded "filter bubble" or "community value system".

Who is this "we", Martin?

Theorem: If we want technologies to help build the type of society that we want to live in, then certain abusive types of behaviour must be restricted.

We already see that the "we" of Martin is a restricted subset of "we the Humanity". There are "we" communities that disagree with Martin's on issues ranging from: the fundamental necessity for freedom of thougth and conscience; the positive value of diversity of thoughts; the positive value of unorthodox ("radical") thought; the fundamental identity of the concept of "community" with "shared values"; etc.

Q.E.D.: Thus, content moderation is needed.

Give the man a PhD.

--

So here is a parable of a man named Donald Knuth. This Donald, while a highly respected and productive contributing member of the 'Community of Computer Scientists of America' [ACM, etc.], also sadly entertains irrational beliefs that "we" "know" to be superstitious non-sense.

The reason that this otherwise sane man entertains this nonsensical thoughts is because of the "filter bubble" of the community he was raised in.

Of course, to this day, Donald Knuth has never tried to force his views in the ACM on other ACM members, many of whom are devout athiests. And should Donald Knuth ever try to preach his religion in ACM, we would expect respectful but firm "community filter bubble" action of ACM telling Mr. Knuth to keep his religious views for his religious community.

But, "[i]f we want technologies to help build the type of society that we want to live in" -- and my fellow "we", do "we" not agree that there is no room for Donald Knuth's religious nonsense in "our type of society"? -- would it not be wise to ensure that the tragedy that befell the otherwise thoughtful and rational Donald Knuth could happen to other poor unsuspecting people who happen to be born and raised in some "fringe" community?

"Thus, content moderation is needed."