I guess I don't think of moderation as thought police. What good moderators do, usually, is boot/pause people who aren't interacting in good faith. I am all about free speech, but I do not believe we need to tolerate bad faith interactions either personally or as a community. If a person is clearly trying to overwhelm the community with spam or trolling, I really, profoundly, do not care if a moderator of a small community shows them the door.
For bigger platforms which operate as a public forum I think the case is stronger for weak moderation, but even in those situations a bad faith actor (say perhaps a state or corporate actor with a lot of money to blow on bots) can completely undermine the purpose of those forums. I really can't imagine how a transparent moderation policy in such a situation isn't at least practically useful. In the end you cannot have a free exchange of ideas if some parties are intentionally manipulating, trolling, or flooding the zone of exchange.
Congress isn't just a free for all of people yelling at eachother. There are rules, not to moderate free speech, but to just make hundreds of people cooperating a possibility.
For bigger platforms which operate as a public forum I think the case is stronger for weak moderation, but even in those situations a bad faith actor (say perhaps a state or corporate actor with a lot of money to blow on bots) can completely undermine the purpose of those forums. I really can't imagine how a transparent moderation policy in such a situation isn't at least practically useful. In the end you cannot have a free exchange of ideas if some parties are intentionally manipulating, trolling, or flooding the zone of exchange.
Congress isn't just a free for all of people yelling at eachother. There are rules, not to moderate free speech, but to just make hundreds of people cooperating a possibility.