Given the rest of his post he probably means "censorship doesn't actually achieve its goal of removing presence of something unless you remove literally everything"; e.g the only way it "worked" for China was corrupting education and society standards so that censored ideas _do not even get pondered_, 1984-style, and even then the censorship itself doesn't function all that well against anyone who still thinks said ideas.
"@Background Pony #A8BB":/forums/meta/topics/the-anti-censorship-dnp-pledge?post_id=4840137#post_4840137
[bq]Although I agree with you I'm afraid it may lead to just throwing somebody under the bus as a scapegoat in order to minimize the consequences.[/bq]That is absolutely true. However, it gets much more difficult when the administrators/technical team (i.e. the people with real ability to affect the site) are few in number, clearly visible, and have personally committed evidence. Which, by now, I am pretty sure many people involved in this debacle have already screencapped.
[bq]Of course, the only alternative I can think of is actively patrolling the beliefs of administration so that only radical libertarians–everyone else believes in censorship to some extent–are allowed in. And although this ethos probably is best for keeping the site censorship free (imo), it would lead to staff shortages, lower quality of staff in other areas, and other potential problems. [/bq]
You can't mind-read, radical libertarians aren't immune to corruption and authoritarianism, and problem is still not believing in censorship, the problem is _enforcing_ censorship.
"@Background Pony #C37A":/forums/meta/topics/the-anti-censorship-dnp-pledge?post_id=4840136#post_4840136
They wouldn't be able to do this if they _didn't_ hold a really important position on the site.