That's it. That's all that needs to happen to keep me on side. The more our online lives and worlds fulfil the above statement, the better.
However, the internet is infrastructure and right now both governments and service providers like Facebook, Twitter, Google effectively force moderation on communities becasue they increasingly control the infrastructure and methods of access that communitites need to use that infrastructure. The goal of "web3" or decentralisation in general should be to remove those layers and give communities complete freedom and control over how and if they moderate content.
To activate your free speech rights, first buy a computer and build your own datacenter. Next, start your own ISP. Finally, tell others about your site, without piggybacking on any existing sites. In this way, all citizens can express their views without fear of censorship… and without fear of anyone ever noticing. https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
The limits are determined by society, usually through the vehicle of government.
> What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you?
Then I petition society to bend the collective opinion towards my own, or I change my opinion to be more in line with society.
> It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded.
The whole point of societies, in the most general sense, is to improve the lives of it's members, in aggregate, over time. Or, as the Buddhists say, to reduce suffering. Systematic exclusion of antisocial and/or deleterious actors is an explicit design goal of functioning societies. To accomplish this goal societies must first acknowledge that the essential nature of their task is subjective, and requires moral judgment. This can produce bad outcomes, sure. But that possibility doesn't invalidate the approach. Laws can also be used to oppress, but we don't throw our hands up and say justice is impossible.