@Gargron I think it's a great discussion (though I seem to get blocked by someone every time I wade into it). I'm still very interested to see a section on that in an open source "constitution" of sorts for the fediverse. Servers could adopt the constitution in whole or in part.

@Gargron Then when people enter a dispute about content warning or no content warning, they can check their respective server rules and use that to settle it. E.g. if the rule were "content warnings are encouraged but not required. It is not recommended to chastise someone for their choice of content warning or not. It is encouraged to inform your followers about content warnings and when to use them..." Not necessarily suggesting that rule, just a rule in that vein.

@escarpment @Gargron
What if they're on different servers?

@BenAveling @Gargron This is a similar question to the one facing the framers of the US constitution. Article IV has a bit of their answer (the full faith and credit clause). The federal govt of the US often has jurisdiction when disputes cross state lines- should there be a "federal govt" for the fediverse? Or is the answer "be careful out beyond the safety of your server: other servers have slightly different rules that we can't protect you from."

@escarpment @Gargron There is no federal government here, so that recourse doesn't have an analogue. This is more like international commerce, other servers have different rules - implying author needs to comply with author's server rules; reader can ask, but not insist.

@BenAveling @Gargron That's an option. There could be a federal government, though. Servers could send representatives to a conference on some cadence to set and update rules that apply to those servers.