I mean, the body of the blog post you're responding to is claiming a) that it is, and b) that even when it isn't, you can just leave a poorly modded community. In the face of that, I don't find "replace-the-word" rhetoric very compelling.
If it were shown that even in good communities with solid mods, a primary use of moderating power was to silence dissent.
For example, in this community, anti-startup articles get posted occasionally. I'd expect to see far more dead comments from people who post agreement with such articles. But I browse with showdead on, and I see no such thing.
Basically, the rhetoric needs to line up with the evidence at hand. If it doesn't, it's unsound.
It was more obvious, re-reading the parent post and noting the phrase, "In the face of that." My reading of your comment without absorbing the phrase's implications prompted the question.
