Not in US politics. If you have 51% of votes of whoever is The Party at the moment, you can make decisions without others impeding on them.
If one party got 51 % of votes, then that means 26,01 % of all votes is enough to decide about the all of the country’s things alone.
At least I don’t want to spend much of my brain power deciding what individuals to block. I prefer there’s a moderator who thinks roughly the same way about things things as I do. It’s better not to be overzealous with the moderation: I am okay with a little bit of manual curating of my feed, but the things most obviously unacceptable to me should be banned by the instance.
Also: If a lot of people see the messages of ICE, I am not really likely to ban them either, because I want to know what is going on in the world around me. But if I know they are being banned by a lot of people because whole largish instances are banning them, they no longer are goin on in my part of the world. At that point it becomes more of a choice to want to hear them.
If it’s connected to the rest of BlueSky, all of its data to any other servers goes through that of BlueSky’s. Even if user on private server A communicates with a used on private server B, the message is routed so that BlueSky’s main moderation team can always affect it – they can block it or they could technically even add to it if they wanted to.
No other servers on BlueSky have that right. Except servers that are completely detached from all servers connected to that of BlueSky. And their separate network has their own central server, then.
I did understand that :)
But still: Verifying means you officially acknowledge their existence. And they are horrible pieces of shit; thereby acknowledging their existence should automatically include making the facts visible. There’s no reason not to call evil evil.
EDIT: Also, your comment was well-written and I have no need to actually argue against you. So, do not worry. I do not completely agree with you, but my disagreement is not terribly strong either :)
Verify it, then put a warning along the lines of
“This is the official profile of a fascistic terrorist organization. Beware.”
Yeah, that makes sense. But why just verify? What non-evil is there that you achieve with that?
He’s saying “if _ _ _ and _ _ _, you’d be voting for him”. Would someone in USA, really? Do people really vote for that other guy mentioned because he’s a murderer and therefore seen as a hero?
To me the whole argument is absolutely bonkers. Both what the guy is opposing on the video and what he is demanding on the video.
That’s why you pay attention when choosing what instance to be on.