> The community is heavily moderated and, while we do have liberty, we do not venerate free speech. There’s a great focus on civility.

If someone made a civil argument with citations, leading to a conclusion you find immoral, but you didn't have the expertise to find errors, would you delete it or leave it up?

I don’t know I’m not a moderator. It’s hard to say without a concrete case, but if such immorality was also against Tildes principles than yes, probably.

Tildes is definitely not a place for free speech absolutists.

Then it's not a place for me. If some claim is true, I want to be able to learn that it's true, no matter whose principles it's against.

I haven't been around Tildes in a while, but they are doing the right thing when it comes to producing an alternative to Reddit - which is focusing on building a community rather than focusing on building a platform. After all, if you find Reddit to be terminally flawed, you will not solve those problems simply by duplicating Reddit.

The Tildes founders looked at Reddit, then what happened to Voat and identified the problem as a social one, not a technical one. The problem with Reddit and Voat lies between the keyboard and the chair. This is why they focus on the quality and good faith of the discourse, instead of metrics like growth or mass appeal. They aren't aiming to be a clearing house for all means of social interaction in the way that commercial social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit are.

Your conclusion is probably correct.

For what it’s worth, Tildes is more free than it seems at a first glance. But we’re determined to not be another victim of the paradox of tolerance.