How are the two congruent though? How can you say "this type of speech (spam) is not allowed" but also say "I want less censorship and more 'free speech'" (whatever that means). Those two view points seem incompatible.
The moment you confess that some types of speech are harmful to your platform, it just becomes about defining where that line is, and naturally people will have differing opinions on whether they agree with those moderation decisions.
What part of "I want less censorship and more 'free speech'" implies that censorship needs to go to 0 and free speech needs to go to 100? Drawing somewhat arbitrary lines between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is not the impossibly difficult task that people who make this argument like to think it is. The US first amendment excludes certain types of speech and it hasn't been a problem.
Censorship (automated or human or both) is not the same as spam filtering.
There might be some edge cases where some non-spam content gets caught in a spam filter.
But these should be two separate systems under different teams and leadership. And if your tweet was removed, you should know if this was antispam or censorship in order to craft an appeal effectively.
The moment you confess that some types of speech are harmful to your platform, it just becomes about defining where that line is, and naturally people will have differing opinions on whether they agree with those moderation decisions.