https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/issues/3859

"I propose to remove this blocking feature which is not in keeping with the spirit of Mastodon"

It's the story if one fucking idiot that comes on github to decide what "the spirit of Mastodon" is.

Privileged man sees free software made to help a group of people ;

Privileged man owns software, shits on the group it was helping, decides it's all about him and removes features that are not strictly made for his issues ;

Group tells him to go fuck himself instead, privileged man writes a 67 pages blog post about how he's being censored and we're breaking the federation ;

We've all​ left or died, privileged man wonders why and says we should speak up in public.

"but freedom of speech!" he says, to a group of people that still:
- is too poor to live decently ;
- gets more murdered by cops ;
- doesn't get appropriate medical care ;
- is much, much more likely to get attacked physically and morally everyday ;
- had to give up privacy because of the two previous reasons ;

The Privileged Man's priorities are everything - but you. Of course if you're too loud he'll kindly ask you to die more quietly, so his voice is easier to hear.

@CobaltVelvet How would the lack of freedom of speech (within the limits of the law, read "justice") improve those other social failures? Are they related? Please, prove it.

@aemon lack of it is not a solution either.
We're at the point where people cannot see the difference between not being listened to and not being allowed to speak, and that is the issue. Free speech is more protected than ever.

@CobaltVelvet @aemon
one of the beauties of Internet is, I'd say, exactly not being forced to listen, while letting anybody speak their mind.
Of course, if one *wants* to listen, there's nothing keeping him from it.

@dataKnightmare @CobaltVelvet That's why the user freedom to mute/block by themselves anyone/any instance is the perfect solution for me. The current behaviour is acting like state censorship against other states, wether their individuals want it or not.

@aemon @dataKnightmare except you can choose your state freely. And make yours without requiring approval from anyone. That alone is a huge difference.

@CobaltVelvet @dataKnightmare That's the same American libertarians say about free market, without referencing real markets nature. Enters shared policies of filtering legal content. Enters big instances... Bye bye freedom of the users. You're neglecting your very same argument of defending minorities, which I support.

@aemon @dataKnightmare so you're saying minorities aren't allowed to have instances adapted to their needs because of... minorities ? Sorry you'll have to elaborate.

@CobaltVelvet @dataKnightmare Exactly, a selected (not elected) minority is disempowering the individuals. That's exactly what it is. That's your definition of freedom and fairness? I bet not.

@aemon @CobaltVelvet nobody is disempowered, because everybody can move and remote follow whomever they please.

@CobaltVelvet @aemon
as a useful example of how nobody is limiting *your* freedom, I am simply concluding we do not agree, and quitely leaving the conversation.
You (that's you Aemon), on the other hand, can go on talking as long as you want, your freedom is intact.

@dataKnightmare @CobaltVelvet Not when I'm muted (for no legal reason) for several thousand of other individuals that didn't choose to do it themselves. That's not freedom. That's not even legal, but I won't go there.

@aemon @CobaltVelvet in the case at hand, you at not muted. Whomever follows you heard you. Your instance is simply not on the public federated TL. This is the last time I repeat: everybody has a right to speak. No one has a right to force others to hear. If I decide I don't like you, or I don't care about your cause, or I just cannot be bothered right now, I am in my full right to disregard you.
Same with instances.

@dataKnightmare @CobaltVelvet I support individual, horizontal action. Vertical action is centralized action. Shared policies for vertical action is oligarchy. Not freedom.

@aemon @dataKnightmare how is it not freedom? Oligarchy *is* freedom if you can freely choose your oligarchs and become independent yourself.
You don't have to be on my instance, you did it yourself. I didn't force you to follow my rules, I asked you if you liked them enough to live by it, and you didn't, and it's fine to me. Isn't that freedom?

@CobaltVelvet @dataKnightmare Accepting a rule does not render it legal. Accepting a law does not render it fair. Source: history.

Oligarchies are just the opposite of freedom. Oligarchs plot against social/user/consumer freedom, sharing policies to rig (and thus own) the market/society they operate in.

@aemon indeed, having the law on my side makes it legal.

Do you believe in private property?
Do you believe, as the owner of this instance, as the individual paying for this server, and technically and legally being responsible for it and everything that happens on it, can and must control what can be made using it?

If not, then you do have a few problems and I have a few new legal loopholes to exploit.