I don't understand your point or what you are responding to :(. The issue at hand is whether the concept of a spam filter violates the position of these laws, and I do not think it does as long as the spam filter is not a universal configuration that is forced on everyone. As long as you can either deactivate the spam filter entirely or whitelist specific senders (though I can make more elaborate arguments where this isn't quite sufficient due to bias) / specific content (which should be sufficient), then I believe that Google's spam filter is not the same thing as "moderation" which deletes or blocks the content for everyone, whether they wanted to see it or not.
In which case I am saying that that seems dangerous for them to be doing under this law, but that the concept of a spam filter isn't fundamentally broken and so people--such as the person I am responding to--who seem concerned that they won't be able to filter spam going forward are off-base, as I would think the spam filter need only be configurable (and, certainly, it would not prevent a third-party spam filter from existing).
Note -, I think spam is filtered before it even hits your account and goes to the spam folder however correct me if I'm wrong