That's not the point. The "authority" in question is not that of humanitarian efforts to including a "right to believe" into any sort of law or guideline. The "authority" in question is about someone validating your beliefs, and that there's no one possibly capable of doing so universally.

There's no one in a position to tell you "this, you can believe" or otherwise. Beliefs, the article says between the lines, are enforced and policed by the community within which the person exists. Once someone makes the claim for someone to not have that authority, they submit that they require validation, else their views are without merit - and so should the other person act.

Imagine that, instead of tempering my frustration, I'd go on insulting people and providing no respect for their points of view on Hubski. I'd continue to get called out on my bullshit, and eventually, I'd get ostracized enough to find myself wishing out more than wishing to stay in.

Or, remember Grendel and his "TFG is a pedophile" post? If he were to go "Hey, I really messed up here, I said some really horrible things about that person, and I promise never to do that again" and act on it, people would've been far more accepting of him, and he wouldn't need to leave Hubski. Maybe he'd become a valuable member of the community.

The reason people get excluded from communities - either by ignoring them or outright expulsing - is because their behavior is corrosive to the group's common-ground ideas. If I were to start shitposting on Hubski, where deep conversation and heated-yet-cohesive discussions are the name of the game, people would at least start looking at me funny: "What tha hell ya doin', boy? This ain't that kinda party!" - and they'd be right. (to be fair, I don't know why I imagine Hubski to be a hillbilly community in that segment; I just think it's funny)

But it's entirely possible for certain behaviors - which are undoubtably fueled by the beliefs held - to be corrosive enough to rupture the community, either by corrupting its members or by undermining good-faith ideas with nihilistic outlook (I can't imagine anything else going on). It doesn't mean thought police and pre-crime are the way to go. I think it's important to teach people responsibility for their ideas, teach them intellectual rigor so that they could apply critical thinking and shed ideas that serve more destructively than constructively.