Thatβs at their whim. At their choice.
Absolutely. There literally is no other way, besides authoritarianism. The owner of that community though is an anarchist. So while nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy, I was relating my belief that it seems unlikely. (i.e. since "won't" is impossible to ever be said with complete certainty, I was rather meaning it as a likelihood estimate - if that helps clear up any confusion)
You would not say that if you knew more about the maker of that community:-). I mean yeah sure they could, but they won't.
Though just to highlight the cool aspect of federation, if I were wrong and that did happen, there is also !Fediverselore@lemmy.ca and !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works.
One instance, one community, cannot ever be counted on, but the Fediverse relies on the fact that we can always go elsewhere - that CANNOT be stopped:-).
Though it would require effort to make happen - freedom does not imply lack of responsibility to have to expend work in order to attain any kind of results at all.
Oh absolutely (and it wasn't me who downvoted you btw, in fact I'm upvoting both here bc relevance). I would argue that there's a social contract, regardless of money, to the people who contribute to making an instance what it truly is - e.g. spez did not "own" all of Reddit content. Though at the end of the day, don't the admins have far more involvement in the matter than a mere lurker, and a mod perhaps the most of all, since they donate their blood sweat and tears into the thing that they build (or at least help build, as in curate) daily?
So if people don't like an instance then move, and same with communities. I blocked !news@lemmy.world months ago and subscribed to !globalnews@lemmy.zip instead. The world is what we make it.
True... then it could be appealed to admins I suppose. Someone could make an entire community dedicated to coin flipping, where that is the sole means of deciding whether posts get to stay or not. So long as no instance rules are violated, it's all good.
Don't underestimate the amount of disinformation propaganda pushing even in such a small platform as here, potentially by people radicalized elsewhere but have now decided to bring it here. Not everyone is a bot (nobody here that I know of even, I'm just bringing up the infamous phrase), yet not everyone may be fully cognizant of the reasons behind their own beliefs either.
If the last criteria is defederation from hexbear.net, then there is strong hope for Discuss.Online. Though I don't know if they would want to host a political community that would involve such controversial topics. They probably would be welcoming to like an AskUSA one.
Then step up to volunteer your services as a mod? Reportedly the tools are terrible and the reason why there are so few mods is that so few are willing to do the job. If a limit were to be placed, without having such volunteers, then how would all those empty positions be filled?
Mods could still remove it though, not for instance ToS but community rules.
I havenβt seen a single comment actually advocating for violence
Re-read the OP, particularly the third paragraph but also definitely the sixth - it covers exactly this topic.
Usually bc they are trying to see if they can get away with that argument. And sometimes it works so they continue to try.
Maybe so you don't have to look at replies?
Well stated, e.g. Reddit is both "dead" (to so many of us) and also "not" at the same time. But the contract I meant is more related to per-person - the admins & mods get to act however they like, and so too do we. It's a contract that was written prior to humans existing, as in actions and reactions. If they go too far in whatever manner as to piss off their users, then they lose them. Whether piecemeal or in large chucks or wholesale or whatever.
They can then remain kings and queens π of their sad little hill if they like. On the other hand, if a mod pisses off an admin too badly, they are removed, and if an instance pisses off the law too much, the whole thing gets shut down. Mods therefore have to do that balancing act between their community members and the admins, just as admins do at the next higher level up of the law. A fact which hasn't seemed to feature all that prominently in most discussions of this topic that I've seen yet so far.