It was you who promoted conformity against freedom of speech:
"Example: one poster has one stance that is conform with the charter but the stance stirs troubles and twenty people threaten to move away if it does not cease.
The moderation might be well advised to moderate the one poster as it is the loss of one instead of the loss of twenty, even when it goes against the charter."
How so? It is just an example of moderators acting to preserve the place they want to moderate, as no place to moderate, no moderation.
Freedom of speech is no guarantee of absence of conformity.
Since, by the way, it is getting clearer and clearer that this is another instance of people whishing to appear for what they are not, and staging themselves in that regard, the following can be told now:
what freedom of speech? It is moderated speech. And a moderation not by people who behave but an external authority empowered by a community.
More evasion.
Well, I stated that it's not a hivemind and does not follow a specific agenda. That wasn't a question.