The debate is happening. It occurs. But then someone makes a comment like above: “is all this debate really necessary?” and the response is “this is censorship”.
I would agree that some viewpoints are silenced in public contexts. But insofar as this conversation, I don’t see anyone being cancelled or shut down for an opinion. That just seems like a defensive reaction to me.
But they are. If you are skeptical of the claims in the article, then apparently you have taken a “depressing” (incorrect/intolerant) stance.
Because this conversation allows me to be anonymous. I simply don't dare expressing my thoughts with my real identity attached. Who knows whether I will get cancelled or fired.
The people working on suppression of certain viewpoints have hurt themselves in the long run. Now I am seeing candid discussions happening only in small trusted circles or on anonymous forums. That can be another reason why we saw embarrassing polling errors in 2016/2020 - openly supporting Trump can be a very risky move for someone.
Ironically, this is not dissimilar to how Zed Shaw treated you. We could either have just believed his accusation that you defamed him, or we could ask for evidence. (My interpretation is that you were making a sarcastic joke at Shaw's expense, mostly because of his extremely opinionated personality, and not making some sort of serious evaluation of his work. And, besides, literally speaking, what you said is probably true.)
If people want to argue that instances of racist behavior exist (at Coinbase, on HN or elsewhere within and outside the industry), few are going argue. The problem is that anecdotal instances do not imply systemic issues unless there is evidence of systemic issues themselves. When the most common response to "show me your evidence of systemic racism" is "you're a racist," then don't be surprised when some of us conclude that the issue is largely overhyped nonsense.
Lists that usually do exist in private tend to be ones like “Don’t work for X company/person” which have a plethora of motivations that may or may not have anything to do with discriminatory behavior. But these are circulated and composed by people at the bottom rather then the top so nobody gets fired: the biggest risk here is you lose out on talent.
But even considering another alternative explanation to something related to discrimination gets you on the list of racists/deserving-of-cancellation/etc. There is always room for debate, especially in a case like this where information is sparse. Forcibly shutting down anyone who wants to exercise their thinking is just socially acceptable censorship.