Lynx769Most disturbing thing I've seen so far is reports of instances blocking whole other instances over philosophical differences. Is this true and what does that mean?
If it means what I think, it does bode well for the platform overall.
jake@Lynx769 I haven't seen much blocking for ideological reasons as much as I've seen it for content reasons (e.g., harassment, hate speech, etc...). mastodon.social has silenced noagendasocial.com for harassment from @adam
I think censorship is exactly what the "mainstream" Mastodon users want, unfortunately. The pro vs anti free-speech debate is alive and well.
@jake sigh. harassment and "hate" are very subjective. I don't know the full story, but it still sounds ideological. Even so, blocking an entire instance?
@Lynx769 Yeah, I agree. It sets a disturbing precedent, imo. With .social being the original and ran by the creator Mastodon, most instances seem to want to follow that model. I can't support that. I feel like in order to break away from the commercialism of the birdsite, this should be less restrictive on speech rather than more.
At least, we still have the option of running instances how we see fit, and I plan on keeping moderation as limited as possible.