Odd analogy imo. I'm not the one setting the rules, the restaurant already decided to only cater towards dieters. They're the ones telling you that, if you don'

Odd analogy imo. I'm not the one setting the rules, the restaurant already decided to only cater towards dieters. They're the ones telling you that, if you don't want to eat on a diet, don't eat at their restaurant. So I think a slightly different analogy would be that it's a restaurant for dieters, and with each drink/food-item, they give you a running tally of how many calories you've ordered. Ie, if you want to eat at that restaurant, clearly you want a diet focused dining experience. They also provide you with a tool to monitor your calorie intake. Likewise, a forum which bans users over civility is clearly one populated by people who seek that. Angry internet voices would clearly be unhappy there, and would not even want to take part. Likewise, that forum also could give you a tool to monitor how un-civil you're being, to help you stay civil. The tool that I spoke of would be an aid to people already choosing to take part in that experience. This would all be a very different story if it was forced on everyone who wanted to say, use the internet. I think your example would more closely resemble a police state. Unwanted rules, shoved down your throat.