@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
"Like I say, opinions differ"
Apparently. I prefer unbiased application of the server rules my instance advertises, as I based my decision to join it on those.
Other Mastodon users may prefer a certain bias, that's all right too.
@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
"you can announce your intention to defederate from them even before they launch."
I would want my instance to abide by its stated server rules, without exceptions either way. That may mean defederation of an instance if it doesn't ensure my instance's users are protected from transgressions by its users, but not defederation because of an expectation it won't. In case it proves necessary, defederation can be effected quickly enough.
@Kryostar @thenexusofprivacy @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
If you're not on a Meta instance, then let users on such an instance care about themselves.
If your instance is affected by discrimination, hate, violence, abuse, immoral moderation due to how another instance is run, then that instance can be defederated soon enough, just like now. No need to do that pre-emptively because an instance is run by Meta or by whomever.
@thenexusofprivacy @Kryostar @fediverse@lemmy.ml @fediverse@kbin.social
> So why do you see enforcing the rules by not federating with another server that's got a long history of transphobia as "bias" <
IMO the rules should be enforced when they get broken, not preemptively due to an expectation they would.
No Meta server exists that uses ActivityPub, so if they set up one, it won't have a "long history of transphobia".
And when that server turns out to not behave, it can be defederated quickly enough.