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. :)
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.