That sounds like the encryption isn't deniable. Personally I would prefer deniable encryption to ability to report wrongthink.
Or a platform used by children.
The alternative, which you're welcome to use, is a fully decentralized/unmoderated platform. That alternative doesn't work for a lot of people. For them, the ability to report is often critical, quite literally, for their physical safety.
May I ask why? If you are not willing to stand behind something that you said then do not say it at all. Anyway, I do not think that deniable encryption is useful at all, after all potentially edited screenshots are taken as truth all the time. At least if you are using a non-deniable communication method you will be able to ask for proof that you wrote the post which they claim that you wrote.
You can block the spammer yourself. I'm not sure if the feature is about only private communication between two users or in channel, but if it's in channel, there can be bot logging messages. That way the bot's owner still knows who posted what and can ban/moderate as needed.
>Do you think these things should be allowed to run rampant just because you believe that an admin's decision to not communicate with you is that terrible?
I have no idea what are you talking about. Are you reacting to what I wrote or to your own projections about my beliefs?
If Bob spams thousands of accounts he'd quickly get on multiple block lists.
This is nonsense. Do you really think everyone should have to deal with spam themselves? Do you disable spam filters on your email and deal with all of that on your own? Do you think, on a site like HN, we should have to filter spam ourselves too?
The internet would be completely unusable if it was expected that everyone deal with spam themselves. This is ludicrous.