I thought a big part of the value of Fedi is how much choice we have over who we associate with.

Why is it a bad thing that people who are choosey about their online experience don't want to listen to AI-shills?

It's interesting how important it is to some people that you supposedly shouldn't be choosey about who you associate with.

The person I saw talking about this framed the "problem" of AI-shills being "unwelcome" on Fedi (not sure I buy that either—they seem to have their own corners of Fedi) as the same thing as Black users being harassed/unsafe/not included, which is just absurd.

It's very "blue lives matter" coded, ya know? Like, being a techbro is not an inherent part of who you are.

@artemis

Agreed. Perhaps I could amplify that point for any bystanders who aren't yet convinced?

If I'm Black, or disabled, or a woman, or neurodivergent, or gay, or trans, or any of a hundred other things, then that's a fundamental part of my identity. I didn't choose it. I can't change it. Anyone who refuses to talk to me because of that characteristic is intolerant. Allowing me to participate as an equal in Fedi makes the place more diverse.

Conversely, if I argue in favour of AI, that's not an immutable part of my identity: it's something I choose to do at present. I can always change my mind later, or just talk about something else. And it's perfectly legitimate for people not to want to engage with me on that subject, just as I choose not to engage with people who talk a lot about sports, because the subject bores me.

One of these things is intolerance; the other is just curating one's Fedi feed. It's deeply misleading for people to blur the difference between the two.