I didn't say it did. All I'm saying is that advocating for it does not necessarily mean that you hate democracy.

Maybe it doesn't mean you hate democracy per say, but what you are advocating means removing the control of a vast amount of information out of people's hands and moving it to a small relatively homogeneous group with their own political will.

Which in turns looks very much authoritarian and undemocratic.

The issue being discussed is not any form of moderation though but centralized regulation of speech (i.e. censorship).

For one HN allows you to see most "deleted" content and engage with it if you choose to, unlike many other platforms. Secondly, the mods don't claim to engage in fact-checking. And downvotes are not driven by single entity. Of course that still leaves the issue that minority views could be downvoted to oblivion, but that's not in direct conflict with democracy, even if outcomes still may be suboptimal.

As for self-censoring. Yes, that can be an issue. You picked racial slurs because that makes self-censoring seem morally acceptable, you're biasing the scenario in your favor. What about protesters calling for violence against an oppressive government? That would commonly be considered a violation of "community guidelines" on social networks.

My issue with social networks is that they amplify without providing contrast. Often there's viral, in-the-moment content which is technically truthful but doesn't provide context. Getting the "yes, but ..." replies that add nuance or rebut the framing would be helpful. Distinguishing and filtering by affirmative vs. conterarguments would be helpful in controversial topics. This doesn't require fact-checking by an arbiter of truth, just a way for people to select which responses they see.