While in theory this might seem to be a good concept, it has serious consequences: things like racism, sexism, verbal abuse, violent nationalist propaganda, discrimination against gender and sexual minorities, antisemitism and a lot more things become popular on such instances.

F-Droid then goes on to say that “moderation” is necessary to prevent “oppression and harassment” from flourishing.

Are they implying that such ideas are so good that the only way to avoid people being convinced by them is to censor; that a rational newcomer who doesn't already have these ideas would be drawn to them because they are so convincing? That almost endorses the terrible ideas they, as do I, dislike so much.

If one is confident in being right, they should engage and not censor, because if they really are right, the right answer will win with everyone who is even a bit willing to change or form their opinions.

One should also avoid censoring because it is possible, that at some point, something the other side says might actually be a good as well, even if one strongly disagrees with other things they believe. Are animal rights, or investment in infrastructure, bad because Hitler believed in them?