> look, not all of us block early and block often like mastodon admins do. [...]
I know. My post wasn't a criticism of Pleroma or the Pleroma-part of the fediverse, it's my observation about the fediverse as a whole. Well, I guess it applies to the Mastodon part the most.
> users have freedom of choice. if they want a free for all where they have to make all moderation decisions themselves, they can join instances that work like that.
If you only care about the instance-local community, sure. But your experience of the fediverse also depends on the blocking behavior of other admins, like I explained on the case of mstdn.io. And that can make the search for a suitable instance very annoying, because not only do you have to check how the instance you want to join is administrated, you also have to check if other instances are blocking or silencing it.
> this isn't an either/or thing. admins which provide spaces that defang the fediverse like I do, are not any more or less evil than the ones which run free speech instances.
I'm not against moderation, I just condemn the inflationary use of instance blocks. I may personally prefer instances with less blocking, but running moderated/safe communities is absolutely legitimate.
To make this clear, I'm not advocating for getting rid of blocks altogether, nor do I hate every single admin who uses them. Of course there are appropriate use cases for them.
All I wish is that users were in full control over the content that they may receive — not only by blocking, but also by unblocking. That's all.
If my idea were reality and if an admin wanted to foster a safe community, it would still be perfectly possible. A user coming in contact with undesired instances would only occur if they actively unblocked said instances, and it would only affect that one user.