Moderation as in "You can't call the other posted 'fuckface'" and moderation as in "I will delete every mention of this news story because it's negative to the agenda I want to push" are not, at all, the same thing.

In fact, I wouldn't call the latter "moderation" at all, rather it's mods abusing their power to push political propaganda, but they do it through moderation in terms of action.

My comment above does not rely on the premise that all moderation is censorship. Only that some Reddit mods engage in censorship.

Some of the moderation is just banning people with differing opinions.

>there's practically no uncensored public spaces on the internet

Yes? Moderation is a form of censorship with a different connotation (the one you agree with vs the other you don't). I don't see how it's controversial

4chan users might want that, but even for the types of people willing to operate a site like that they don't want to be liable for the amount of CSAM, piracy, and other legally objectionable material that would end up on a fully unmoderated site.

i can name at least (1) thing that wants "unmoderated space": LLMs.

Regardless there's value to know exactly what topics are off limits and for which platforms. Censorship needs to be measured and quantified (probably with vectors).

I want an unmoderated space. Or rather, I want the tools of moderation to be in the hands of the users instead of a central authority.

Giving an anonymous rando the power to censor my conversation is abhorrent. And it's absurd that most people are ok with that.

You still want to know the extent of that 'moderation' that is totally not censorship. E.g. Facebook and Instagram ban white nationalism, and Youtube has banned American Renaissance, meaning we can infer Google bans white nationalism too, as American Renaissance is guilty of nothing else.

You may agree or disagree with the ban, but surely you agree that we should be aware of such Overton window enforcement?