If some fuckstick from Nebraska asked me to snitch on my users for something which isn’t a crime in my state, I would simply tell them to fuck themselves, go ahead, and try to have me extradited. If my instance were bordering on a trillion dollars market cap, I’d hire a fucking lawyer.

This has been the dynamic on Mastodon for years now, and I don’t think it is really a problem. Framing the problem itself as “free speech” vs. “censorship” itself is often used as a fascist canard when it is really a matter of the freedom of association. Communities choose who to associate with and who not to associate with. Moderation, to prevent harassment and abuse, to keep the discussion on topic, to remove illegal content, is a very NORMAL thing. It starts with small tools like temp-bans from communities, and increases in scale to permanent bans from instances, or de-federation if an instance proves to be a continuous torrent of abuse.

There are a lot of cases of genuine censorship which take place on commercial platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, but these “free speech extremists” are always more concerned about whether or not they can use slurs and spew blood libel than they are about what happened to r/BlueLeaks.

Or is it usual for people to run instances from their homes using common ISP subscriber variable IP addresses?

No. That that would be absolutely ridiculous for anything beyond an ephemeral CounterStrike server.

They could, but they will develop a very poor reputation if they do this for frivolous reasons.

For now, if it turns out to be shit, you can just join a different instance. Perhaps leave a note in your old bio which directs people to your new account.

> Federation means it’s almost meaningless which instance you register with, and as integration between instances and other Fediverse apps gets better it will just become more and more meaningless.

IMO, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Different communities have different priorities, principles, and technical requirements, and will take different approaches to controversy. Some communities are low-profile and laid back. Others are magnets for abuse and may require additional moderation, and even technical changes, like disabling image embeds (as one example) to mitigate harassment. Some are filled with avid shitposters, while others insist on the utmost degree of civility. Some have advanced requirements for operational security. Some want to protect broad access to the network at all costs, while other would rather accept a couple blocks rather than ban their own members. Some might be focused on video and require an instance that can handle the additional bandwidth and storage requirements.

Who hosts your instance is important. The jurisdiction your instance is housed in is important. If a community requires special accommodations for accessibility or other reasons, that is important. If you need moderators / admins who understand your native language, that is important. If an instance wants to go above the technical level and do things like verify users (kinda like journa.host) that makes an important distinction from your typical instance.

In the beginning, we won’t know who’s trustworthy, but this is the Internet. There will be controversies, and we will see how various admins respond to these controversies. Over time, they will gain reputations, both good and bad. It is best if somebody who already has a good reputation, like a respected mod from another community is able to operate the new home for that community.

For now, it probably doesn’t matter where you end up, but as time passes, it is good to keep an ear to the ground and see how things develop. Eventually you will find a solid niche. This is a problem even the fanciest join-xyz-fediservice website can’t really solve, but it is meaningful.