• VerifiablyMrWonka@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Why unacceptable? As the runner of an instance I get to have control over my own little walled garden - it’s literally the primary strength of federation. If anyone, at any time, is unhappy with the content moderation policies of the admins of their Mastodon/Calckey/Peertube/Lemmy/kbin instance then they are able to find a new home - or maybe start one of their own, like dbzer0 did.

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not sure I understand your point - yes the runner of the instance has the ability to do whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean whatever they want to do is a good idea. If the decision is implemented my response would indeed be to move to a different less problematic instance, after complaining a bit to see if I could get the decision reversed rather than having to flee.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Some instances are democracies some are dictatorships, some have no rules.

    • FinalBoy1975@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Actually, that could be the reason why sometimes the user finds things unacceptable, because some instance owners treat their instance like their “own little walled garden.” It’s a real pain to shop for an instance when you don’t want a walled garden but rather an open medium through which to access content you wish to see. I see some instance owner decisions as reasonable (like staying away from misinformation and fake news) and I see others as a little bit unreasonable. I try to stay out of walled gardens. I like to roam free and make decisions for myself because I’m a smart boy, I know what I want and how I want it.