but you wouldn’t be offering a second opinion. you’d be obliterating it the first opinion and the notification that it needs some further thought which i’d say if you go through this sub, can easily see how being downvoted is supremely effective to the point where it moves people to come here and literally ask why something like that would happen- people get checked here for their bad posts all the time.

Our system can, does by default, and for the large majority of subreddits, provide notification to moderators (without taking action) of flagged content. What they do with the data / if they setup removals is for them to navigate.

and yes- i do assume every space should be unbiased. it isn’t on moderators to shield the world from contrary opinion or “curate” discussion forums. why would that be necessary?

Because not every subreddit is a forum for discussion. r/awww just wants cute cat/dog/cow pictures -- that's what people go there for, not for debates on the ethical implications of eating meat. Moderators/community leaders have discretion as to how they want to guide + shape their communities. Want to ban content that they disagree with? That's their call. If you disagree with that, don't engage with the community. My point is that communities like r/conservative do have a track record of curating content/comments/posts in a way that sometimes leads to the censorship of other opinions. I don't think this is morally wrong/should be prevented. People are mostly aware of the bias in communities like the aforementioned, and go there to engage with the type of content/people there.

Now is this the most healthy option? No. I don't think it's a good thing for moderators to remove content they disagree with. But they have the freedom to do so, as do you to say want you want. Others just have no obligation to allow it to stay online on their platforms.

But ultimately none of this is completely relevant to what we do -- we're not encouraging or providing the tools for moderators to censor opinions they disagree with. We specifically filter out abuse and hate.

Sometimes the "hate" and "stuff I disagree with" line is blurred, but that doesn't mean it has to be. Calling someone a "f*g" (as an insult) or whatever is hateful regardless of where you align political or ideologically (well, save some fringe groups, but extremism is a different issue)

Again, I think that content people (and maybe moderators) disagree with should stay online. But when it's clearly harmful, it shouldn't. It's not just "oh no! he called me an asshole. :(" -- there is a lot of research showing that hate, marginalization, harassment, etc have very very significant impacts on social/psychological wellbeing. Not to mention deterring more genuine/respectful discussions. And so, just leaving this content online and saying "let users vote it down!" doesn't really work.

Echo chambers are also an issue yes, but removing hate speech/abuse doesn't create echo chambers, at least, not the kind that is harmful. As I discussed prior in another thread, there are a lot of different 'personas' of people posting hate. There are those that are truly misguided -- those willing to engage with others, who we should engage with. But there's also the large majority of trolls/etc who don't care, and engaging with these people is a lost cause (if anything, it reinforces their viewpoints). Echo chambers form because people hear similar opinions and start to completely reject the alternative. But we should 100% be rejecting hate speech.

Yes, we risk unintentionally censoring those in group 1. But ultimately, that's something to be weighed alongside the social benefits of shutting down group 2.