I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment.

> so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree

Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think.

> The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy.

I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship.

> If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.

Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to.

[1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".