100% it doesn't make any sense to expect different behavior out of the same format just because you make slightly different promises about what the rules will be
Bluesky has been drama central since the beginning, consisting mostly of people who thought Twitter wasn't censoring enough (or censoring the wrong people), the free speech crowd came later and, well, tested the waters and found transphobic speech was in fact not free, and that despite distributed promises, the town wasn't big enough for the two parties to coexist
While I agree with you, I would hesitate to be throwing stones from the glass house that is Hacker News.
This place also suffers from some pretty severe systemic issues that are inherent to any site that delegates moderation responsibilities to ordinary users. Invariably, these tools get abused to silence people.
The amount of greyed out and dead posts in this very comments section is exhibit A, and it's a pattern I've seen repeated in pretty much all other sites like it.
Bluesky actually has a central contradiction in that:
1. It was founded by the free speech crowd. 2. It is funded by VCs and required to eventually make a profit, which implies one set of constraints on free speech. 3. Its main initial userbase was people who expected a completely different set of constraints on free speech.
I don't think this is a contradiction that can be resolved by Bluesky. Blacksky might manage it, but I think they will turn up new contradictions, and the high cost of running an alternative ATProto stack is a big impediment to resolving those.