There are a few assumptions here. One: Criticism (in the context you mention) implies a desire to see the object of discussion improved rather than destroyed. Two: Criticism of "governments in general" rather than specifically one's own government is vital to democracy. Three: That moderation is being done based around whether something is criticism or not rather than it being backed by evidence or not.

As applied to our situation, all of these are overwhelmingly false and one need only look at this thread to understand that.

Its always difficult separating held beliefs from personal or social identity. Evidence for or against something is rarely enough to get someone who has an identity tied to a belief to change thier opinions or not react out of a fight or flight response.

I think setting and enforcing boundaries regularly while not ostracizing or demonizing people is a better way to approach it. Its hard, takes time, and isn't guaranteed to work; but it comes from a place of tolerance and acceptance rather than condemnation.

I agree wholeheartedly that letting rants go on unchallenged is a big issue, it provides a rallying point for others with similar beliefs and pushes the boundary back away from accountability and discussion and towards emotional and fear based outbursts. Do you think there is room for healthy discussion here on the fediverse and specifically in this instance?