Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)?

And aren't those with controversial, or "controversial", or "non mainstream", opinions (or, in some cases, facts) routinely accused of just "wanting to stir shit" when they express them?

And isn't it a moot point, when the same would happen to others genuinely writing the same things? What about people wanting to talk and argue about precisely those things?

> Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)?

It is.

As mentioned in the thread your replying to users are able to change whatever moderation settings they want. They can even subscribe to 3rd party moderators of they want.

If you want to fraternize with the creative geniuses behind "Michelle Obama penis theory" you're welcome to go use 4chan instead. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love.

If you want to censor online platforms' discourse, or to apply censoring defaults to what users see, you're welcome to go to North Korea. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love.

See how cheap and easy ad hominems are?