I just think, that excluding specific people that have not actually done anything wrong yet(at least on this platform) will lead to a homogeneous userbase. And even if he is not obliged to host anyone, I think it would be a way smarter decision if someone, who is aware of their danger, is hosting them. That person could later moderate their usage of their accounts, if they overstep certain limits way sooner than someone hosting them on another instance.
Overthr0w
joined 1 year ago
Startpage primarily because I was told that the Google results are better than DuckDuckGo but I never noticed any big difference except that Startpage has deactivated NSFW content by default. DuckDuckGo feels a little bit snappier and less cluttered tho.
he is not just deciding for himself, he is also deciding for others in this case. If he would have just blocked them, that would have been his choice. But he is also making a choice in others' stead. And that has nothing to do with freedom, the others can make a choice on their own. I feel like the term freedom of speech has been degenerated to a tool to push ones own agenda. People try to suppress other opinions, which leads to lack of discourse and radicalization.
I don't think, that's a good idea, it just screams virtue signaling to me. Also it's pretty anti freedom of speech. This is just so childish, it's embarrassing.
Seems interesting, I'll definitely try that one out