There's a very fuzzy line somewhere, on one side of which a provider is helping users get what they want, and on the other is blocking content they don't want users to receive. I'm exploring where that line is.
While you have a right to send emails to me, I have a right to sign up for a service that automatically blocks emails I don't want to receive. The line is crossed when that service starts blocking emails I would like to receive. I'd say there is a pretty competitive market of email providers, and the rules are reasonably transparent about what's being blocked. Thus, it seems that "censorship" is a rather strong accusation here.
The original comment was about text messages, of which there is certainly not a competitive market (the Ma Bell T-1000 has reassembled itself into only 3 remaining pieces), users were surprised at the behavior, and there doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to opt out of stupid rules like blocking whole TLDs. So it's a far way from being able to say that such blocking represents the will of the user.
I'd guess there are far more users like that, which is precisely why there are no major email providers offering the kind of service you talk about.
As always comes up in these conversations, while you have a right to speak, users have a right not to listen, and to use tools to help accomplish that.
I’ve seen it termed the “All Ns are equally likely” fallacy. I.e. when programmers write code, they know that they should write different code for when N is 0, for when N is 1, but as soon as it goes higher, most programmers tend to write code which is optimized for arbitrary values of N, even though in actual practice N might almost always be, say, at most 10. This often leads to inefficient and overcomplicated code, where a simpler algorithm might be faster most of the time while still able to correctly, if more slowly, deal with non-typical values of N.
