Sure, you have the right to manage your servers however you like... and I have the right to unfairly use you as a proxy for my rage at everyone who has ever broken the Internet's global nature to make their server log files a little less noisy.
That's his version of events that he's showing to his audience. People who get banned from things often share a harmless-looking excerpt when that's not really what got them banned.
It would be good to have the whole context before reaching a conclusion.
The statute is constructed in an unusual way because it doesn't require that the threat is transmitted to someone who believes it. It says:
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly:
...
(3.5) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner a threat of destruction of a school building or school property, or a threat of violence, death, or bodily harm directed against persons at a school, school function, or school event, whether or not school is in session;
Laws against transmitting threats are usually written in a manner that excludes jokes sent to friends who understand that they are jokes.
Also, use Signal. Signal will not call the cops when you send dumb jokes to your friends. There are no good reasons for most people to not use Signal.
This post says who he is and that he got banned from mastodon.world, but it does not say what he posted there before getting banned.
The .world network is not known, in general for having unconventional rules or heavy-handed moderation. Without more information, I have to assume he posted something that would get him banned a lot of other places too.
Blocking all traffic from regions of the world that you have no intention of servicing is a very valid cybersecurity layer.
I pretty regularly run into things that block access or make me complete captchas while I'm traveling. I may not be in a region you intend to service, but I'm (possibly) from a region you intend to service. Airplanes are a thing.
Buying access to a residential proxy to deal with that situation would be an extreme step for most people, but as a cybersecurity practice, it's problematic.
I understand the rationale behind punishing an attempt at theft if that's what actually happened, otherwise a would-be thief has no incentive not to try. It's critical to be right before doing that.
The drug charges are just fucked. Drug possession should not be a crime.
It's murder even if someone is likely involved in drug trafficking. Nobody involved has been tried or convicted, and the penalty for drug trafficking is not death in any civilized country.
Stale index: the link and summary DDG has stored no longer matches the site's content because the site changed it. The index will get updated eventually. This is the most likely explanation.
Selective content: the site dynamically chose to serve you different content than it serves to DDG's crawler or other visitors. It might, for example think that you're a bot and want you to go away.
Opt-in denylists with pre-populated categories would be a reasonable feature. A frontend author trying to trick users into thinking there's a technical issue with servers the author doesn't like is presumptuous and disrespectful of the user.
People did similar stuff with Mastodon clients when the far-right microblog service Gab migrated its backend to a Mastodon fork and I didn't like that either.
They didn't, mostly. There have always been traffic deals, but otherwise:
Netscape: initially charged money for the browser, but free later.
Internet Explorer: initially charged money, bundled with Windows later. Not intended to be profitable directly, but to prevent the web from making the desktop OS where Microsoft had a near-monopoly irrelevant.
Opera: built-in banner ad, pay for ad-free.
Mozilla Suite, later pivoting to Firefox: initially nonprofit.
Safari: bundled with Apple operating systems, but also offered for Windows for a few years. Safari was never meant to make money directly, but to give Apple more control over the web experience, and probably to keep the web from competing with native apps too effectively on iOS.
Chrome: never intended to make money directly. I'm not sure the initial plan was to spy on users either; Google was a different company in 2008. Instead, I think Google really wanted a browser to make the web the application platform Microsoft feared, and found the existing options lacking.
I think it's best we just maintain some recency bias when it comes to how harshly we judge people for their past internet behavior. If you were an asshole ten years ago and haven't acted that way recently, I'll just assume you were 12. We were all 12 once.
I tried pointing a text classifier at a subreddit's comments 15+ years ago. It would be surprising if we weren't seeing widespread use of automated moderation by now.
Interestingly, a sentence starting with "you are" ended up being one of the most damning features a comment could have with regard to civility.
Sure, you have the right to manage your servers however you like... and I have the right to unfairly use you as a proxy for my rage at everyone who has ever broken the Internet's global nature to make their server log files a little less noisy.