Communities are built on shared values and expectations of what is or isn't acceptable conduct. If a guest to your club house starts pooping on the carpet, you throw them out not only because you don't want that to happen in your club house but also because throwing them out demonstrates to the other people in your club house that they can expect there to be actual consequences to that kind of behavior, allowing them to feel safe knowing that they won't have to worry about it. Bluesky's solution apparently boils down to just telling everyone to ignore the poop guy and giving them the option to not be able to see him.
The problem with censorship isn't the enforcement of rules. The problem with censorship is the enforcement of rules the individual that has to enforce them doesn't agree with. Free speech absolutism on social media is often argued for with appeals to "the town square" but the difference between social media and an actual town square is that if you make a complete ass out of yourself in an actual town square, eventually someone will punch you.
wtf. The problem with censorship is censors are subservient to his nation and don't get to pick victims at his will? "demonstrates ... that they can expect there to be actual consequences" ? You really must hate the concept of a modern nation and social contract.
Post 18th century world started with peasants beheading kings and gutting his body into pieces so no single individual shall have any meaningful parts of it. The fact that kings had the power to throw anyone out of "his" club, deemed no longer his simply by volume of peasants within, at his king's discretion without the newly established ultrabureaucratic people's approval processes, was the problem they had enough of.
I'm not even sure in which part in the history of humanity your definition of free speech and censorship problems could come from. I don't think even ancient Roman Senate honored that kind of view as I've never heard they held sessions with bags of stones around. That isn't an anarchist view either, since it will lead to their minority views alone justify such "consequences".
Sure, telling people who openly advocate for the death of people in your group to take their opinions elsewhere is exactly like peasants beheading kings or kings throwing people they didn't like into the pit. I'm not even sure how to begin responding to such a creative interpretation of what I said.
> throwing them out demonstrates to the other people in your club house that they can expect there to be actual consequences to that kind of behavior, allowing them to feel safe knowing that they won't have to worry about it.
> telling people who openly advocate for the death of people in your group to take their opinions elsewhere
These parts of your comments imply your default model of safety is a safe haven in a barbarian land with perimeter walls and armed guards and a benevolent property owner. Clearly your thinking is privatized violence is integral to safety. You might be thinking that's what freedom of speech is, as in freedom implemented in speech domain, but that is wrong. Freedom of speech as this phrase is used is something different from that.
Freedom of speech means speech is always taken as unserious as practically possible. Absolute freedom of speech would mean even advocating for death, or however terrible the messaging might be, are taken as weird jokes until an action is taken.
This is not the matter of thresholds and analogies, your model of freedom is just wrong.
The problem with censorship isn't the enforcement of rules. The problem with censorship is the enforcement of rules the individual that has to enforce them doesn't agree with. Free speech absolutism on social media is often argued for with appeals to "the town square" but the difference between social media and an actual town square is that if you make a complete ass out of yourself in an actual town square, eventually someone will punch you.