But it is not in the nature of social media sites with moderation to be burnable-down! That's the entire point of moderation: things tend to burn down on their own without it. So you put irresistibly potent fire-extinguishers (moderators) around, and try to arrange and/or hope that they only put out the actually dangerous fires. They might not; things might end up rather soggy. But you won't be burning anything down, and neither will government, because things burn from lack of control, and government generally is best at adding controls not removing them, and at acting when things are on fire, not when they have less dramatic problems.

Moderated social media just doesn't burn well. You could as well hope to burn down an iceburg--hope you brought several thousand tons of metallic sodium! Left alone, it might melt away to nothing after a while, however.

Instead the question should be: despite the limitations, is this venue good enough to be worth any effort, or should I leave for somewhere else? Can I through my own actions move things to be more like (what I view as) the ideal? If I take what steps are possible to isolate myself from the problems, is there enough left to be worth anything?

There are a variety of viewpoints on Medium, though certainly not a full spectrum, and one does have to speak with some tact (which is, admittedly, an especially large burden on the neurodivergent, but which you can't really escape by prominently playing that card on every message, even though on Medium one would assume that the card ought to work). So maybe it's not worth the effort for you personally.

But although you might be in the mental state of "yeah whatever it can all burn down", it's still worth considering how to conduct oneself in light of more realistic scenarios.