@selea
Absolutely. At least in the USA. It's important to look at the history of the USA to glean insight into its culture. We were founded by people who overthrew a massive empire. The constitution was created with inherent distrust in politicians, and each state is partially autonomous so that variations in culture can allow for variations in government.

In this context, it absolutely makes sense that people would be inherently distrustful of authority. Their right to do so is directly protected by the First Amendment, and indirectly protected by the Second.

Whether or not that's moral or right is a different question, but whether it's protected by free speech is indisputable.

@Demosthenes @selea These people have the right to say what they want, but they don't have the right to force everyone to listen. If I have a news website where users can post their own content, I will not publish stupid articles and I will not promote stupid articles from other websites. Is that a censorship? No, everyone does that. Do you think it would be fine if BBC radio had an ad for a flat-earther podcast? Users who signed up for your instance chose you to make some decisions for them and I think that includes blocking instances.

@paper
If users post content, then you aren't publishing that content, they are. You are merely hosting it.
The difference is apparent when you consider liability protections. You are shielded from liability as long as you make an honest effort to remove legitimately illegal content. This absolute proof that you aren't publishing, but merely acting as a conduit for communication. To then take advantage of that position to then control a narrative is exploitative and exacerbates power asymmetries that already exist in our world.

@Demosthenes The reason I like the Fediverse is that there are many instances. If I wanted an instance without rules, I can find one. But then it will be blocked by many instances because noone wants to listen to nazis. I think that's ok.

I am pretty sure people don't have a first amendment right for a platform, Facebook, Twitter and other social media are blocking some extremist organizations. The problem is that maybe in the future I will not agree with Facebook on who they should block.

There is not one Fediverse, if I don't like my instance admin's decisions, I can find a different instance and migrate there.

@paper
That's fair, I agree that choice is a fantastic thing. I just worry about large, powerful social media sites making these decisions and effectively controlling the narrative and the width of the Overton Window. While that is a choice with the Fediverse, it isn't one on Facebook, Twitter, et al.

Plus there's the issue of echo chamber formation with this kind of censorship, but it kind of goes into a tangent.