Observing what some are calling "growing pains" with how Mastodon instances moderate minority voices is reinforcing what free speech advocates like @popehat have preach for years - that it is the ability for minorities to share their perspectives even if that is uncomfortable for the majority which is the most important function of free speech.
@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.
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.
