@geekgirl397 If you begin with the premise that we cannot be made uncomfortable, this becomes a rather intractable problem. The framers of the United States constitution looked at 18th century Europe and decide that, at least at the government level, there would be freedom of expression with all the discomfort that inevitability leads to.

In the for-profit social media sphere a much more complex system developed based on market forces -- what retained the most eyeballs and didn't frighten away advertisers. Of course market forces also include socially inept billionaires.

Even in the not-for-profit space moderation is driven by what doesn't drive off donors so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

The fallacy that I see in current #fediblock interactions is the idea that there is some formula that everyone can agree upon which neatly divides the users into acceptable and unacceptable, and all we have to do is aggressively de-platform the latter.

@antares @geekgirl397

I have wondered about "...there would be freedom of expression with all the discomfort that inevitability leads to." the applicability of the 1st Amendment to modern global spanning, speed-of-light messaging.

"..which neatly divides the users into acceptable and unacceptable..." What is acceptable? The deplorable thinks his statements should be acceptable, and others are not, which Anomielia the #DREADpirate @geekgirl397 pointed out.

@rmerriam Thus the word "fallacy". There is not a bright line that defines acceptable behavior, however many instance admins acting like there is and all they need to do to make Mastodon into the promised land of social media is to aggressively enforce that line.

@rmerriam @antares yes, who has the authority to delineate the bounds of the acceptable, indeed, in this global connected world?

Historically I guess it has been "might makes right" - the side with the biggest army.

@rmerriam @antares
... Now it's pretty much whoever has the biggest bank account. Perhaps quaint little oases where we can imagine civil society or democratic government can carve us out safe spaces are just blips in the timeline.

@rmerriam @antares Moderators in the fediverse can negotiate spaces of relative comfort for some communities some of the time, but in the face of economic forces including the market, states (some oppressive), religions and organizations, it's going to be an ongoing struggle.

@antares @antares that's a very elegant way of framing the issue. Discomfort vs freedom vs market forces.

Simple answers are appealing but often wrong ... We've no hope of solving the practical questions if we don't first identify the underlying tensions and contradictions.

@isucceed Last week you boosted [this post][1] from Stux lamenting, "What's it with people reporting every single person they don't like.." While you personally may not find yourself uncomfortable, I would take that post as clear evidence that a significant number of people are.

[1]: https://mstdn.social/@stux/109369969599633401