If you think that, then you don't understand the rules as well as you think you do. BCH announced their activation date and had not changed their network magic at that time (They did later, though, which I respect. For all the bad things people say about BCH, at least they forked responsibly in the end). The /btc1 client developers, however, outright refused to change their network magic, which was highly irresponsible. Because of these factors, action was taken to keep the Bitcoin network secure. It's all well documented and I have
posted the relevant link several times in the past to demonstrate that both to you and to anyone else who might be tempted to believe your incessant lies.
those in the BCH crowd did net announce an activation date, to which core reacted with a core activation date
core announced a controversial aparthied-esq event to force off the opposition. code, devs and even the blockchain can prove it first and bch reacted
(bch didnt make their first block until AFTER core pushed them off)
not sure why you try to alter history when devs themselves and cod and the blockchain are happy to admit it.
as for the segwit2x again removing them off the network BEFORE a proposal even gets activated is not consensus
consensus: consent of the majority.
throwing off a part of the population is not fair consensus. its controversial fork to fake consensus
consent of the majority is about voting. again you thinking core should just do anything and control the network as they deem fit is totalitarian/tyranny.
its time you learned consensus, byzantine generals theory, and how proposals should be activated.
letting a group of devs just throw out opposition BEFORE a proposal threshold is reached is not the way to handle a proposal.
throwing out opposition AFTER a feature upgrade is different. do not ever again try to confuse the former by pretending the latter.
hint
segwit reached threshold 24th august. and only should such network affecting 'send offs' occur happen after. to reduce orphan risk of differing 'network magics'.. but the august 1st and august 7th 'send off' purely to fake agreement to a threshold. (proven by devs, code(yep your own link) and by blockchain) is not how consensus works nor seen as a fair system
as for the topic
you say
Where do we draw the line between freedom and fair use? How much usage is too much? And so on. So for now, it's going to continue and we'll just have to accept it as a consequence of Bitcoin effectively being a victim of its own success.
thinking the solution is just to send off users is wrong.. i completely wonder what planet you are from where you think the answer to everything is to throw users off by force/only option
the solution is not also to just let it ride and affect EVERYONE and just call it a 'victim of its own success' when the victimisation is caused by core implemented coding
a possible solution is to put in a fee priority mechanism as a network magic(yes it can be done, you proved it yourself with your admiration for core doing such consensus bypassing processes)
but even without doing it the 'core way' and implementing it under fair consensus. the result would be the same. spammers pay more than non spammers. thus only spammers become the victims. and only the spammers have to make the choice to change their methods.