You’re not suppressing their opinions, they are free to express them to the limit of what the site owner wishes.
This is what I’ve been talking about, ie that the Bluesky official mods are censoring her on that platform. And a barrister who’s won numerous cases and is posting in a professional capacity about her area of expertise is not at all like “drunk, braying racists”. It’s a ridiculous comparison to make.
You’re simply limiting your interaction with them.
Yes, blocking and blocklists, which Sandwich was talking about, can certainly be useful if you want to place limits on what you might read or who can see or respond to your posts. But if imagoody.bksy.social creates a blocklist called “baddies”, it doesn’t mean the people on it are actually baddies, or that you’re a goody if you use it.
Generally I’d rather moderation that concerned itself with abuse rather than opinions, and certainly not with opinions that have passed the test of many employment tribunals.
I’ll take the flounce now, as the topic could be its own thread and I don’t fancy starting one!