@FediTips With all due respect...

Your main argument seems to be a fear that if offered a lot of money, that someone running a huge instance like mastodon.social will eagerly sell it if a large enough offer comes up.

My question to you is, what constitutes a "large instance"? Is there an exact number and if so, do you believe that all instances should be capped at that number and no longer allowed to accept new users?

Thanks.

@Mrfunkedude

My "main fear" -- as you put it -- is that a mega-instance is poorly moderated (if it's moderated at all) such that my public/remote and public feeds are filled with extremely explicit, full-contact, full penetration homosexual pornography, all emanating from Mastodon dot Social exclusively

Which may not trouble you, but de gustibus non est disputandum, right?

cc @FediTips

@FinchHaven @FediTips
The problem with this is that it seems to assume that smaller instances have better moderation. I think it would be better to say that it's "easier" to moderate a small instance. Some small instances are barely moderated at all.

As for the porn, I've been on .social since 2018 and while I have seen all types of porn and nudity here, if it is covered with a CW then it follows the TOS. If not, what's stopping you from blocking it yourself? (Which I've done as well.)

@Mrfunkedude @FinchHaven @FediTips

Uh bro you don't make sense. "easier" leads to better moderation structurally. To put it another way, it may not be a 1:1 relationship, but it IS a major contributive factor.

> "If not, what's stopping you from blocking it yourself?"

This is absurd and completely ignores the idea of moderation to begin with, which is to minimize bad user experience. Networks are large and filled with lots and lots of people. It's impractical to delegate it to users purely.

Preferably, moderation is robust enough that that is an exceedingly rare situation to be in.