You can't have consistent good content without curation and moderation, both of which are considered forms of censorship. The closest thing to what you're describing in the /g/ board on 4chan, except of course even they have a line.

There's a distinction between moderation and censorship. Moderation is just removing spam, comments that have no point, or personal attacks.

It crosses into censorship when removing alternate ideas even if the ideas are well sourced and logical and presented in a respectful manner.

Be sure not to confuse the two.

These are clear differences.

4chan let's anything go except, I believe, pedophilia, including personal attacks and comments with no point. Very little moderation.

Hacker News will actively remove posts that are counter to prevailing narrative even if well sourced and presented respectfully. So bordering on Censorship.

So something in between the two would be great.

It's sort of a form of the paradox of tolerance. If there is no moderation, the least pleasant/most abrasive people will drag the quality of discussion down, and drive everyone else away. That's not to say I agree with the conclusions of the author of the blog post

Moderation and censorship are radically different.

Moderation is just to prevent spam and personal attacks and things that have no connection to the conversation.

Censorship is manipulating the conversation by removing ideas that go against the conversation even if they are relevant, well sourced, and respectfully presented.

Be sure not to get the two confused.

The difference between censorship and moderation is entirely subjective. Censors always think they're moderators — that they're protecting the quality of the discourse rather than stifling ideas they dislike — because part of how they rationalize their dislike of those ideas is by believing that they harm the discussion.

I think there may be some grey area but a moderator vs a censor are very different.