That's not an issue with reddit - moderators are not paid, nor is reddit responsible for them - and when users subscribe in a sub, the contract is that they 'll abide by moderation rules and downvoting rules. That's not corporate censorship. The problem is when the company itself starts censoring what the users have voluntarily subscribed to read.
How do you square that circle? Surely you should object to what HN does - in fact why would a believer in no censorship even have an account here if HN are censoring (moderating and limiting) what everyone is able to say?
However, HN could instead be subreddit in reddit's platform, with HN (or preferably an unrelated external entity) paying the moderators.
Were HN and FB a publisher, and had a UK office (and similarly in other countries with strong laws in this area) they would be liable as well as the individual posters. Those laws are why when things like Snowden and Cambridge Analytica broke they were published both sides of the Atlantic.
You've now created a problem potentially far bigger than the one you fixed.
FB And HN are subject to US law where they 're based.It's up to the UK to block access to them if they think they 're illegal - Or preferably to fix libel laws.
If Fred Smith writes a piece in The Times that libels me, I sue the newspaper, not Fred Smith.
FB and the other globals are subject to the laws of every place they operate. e.g. See all the US companies causing controversy changing their policies within China.
The fact that stories like CA and Snowden have been jointly published in the US, rather than say Canada or France makes me suspect that chances of a successful suit are low in the US. That's probably the point. :)
https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-k-means-cluster...
The property "interesting" is an individual decision. A forum like HN could implement K-Means Clustering instead of having dang madly moderating stuff. Over time, those HN users interested in "technologically interesting stuff" would aggregate together, and generally only see posts that are "voted up" by others in their cluster.
All the other crap would be seen by all those HN users that migrated over from 8chan.
The problem with this, of course, is that HN would be full of all sorts of sickening crap that you and I would never see (or, at least, until a small sampling of us saw it, and all down-voted it into the 8chan netherworld).
The great thing about this -- the FBI, et.al. would have much better tools to do their jobs: they could troll these seedy underbellies of HN, etc., and actually spear-phish and destroy the scum that is posting repellent garbage.
Or, we could carry on doing what we're doing, even though it can't work. Our choice.
edit: What about downvoting? Does that not count because it's by users? However the algorithm for ranking and matching is controlled by the platform, does that count as censorship since it will promote some posts over others?