Assuming that "bigots" is not a synonym for "anyone I disagree with", then fair enough.
Why would it be?
My underlying point is that technology is making it very easy to wall ourselves off into comfortable echo chambers
Your experience is different to mine. I wish I could wall myself off from people who want to remove my rights and target me with hate, but I've yet to find a way of doing that.
Essentially I am saying that in a democracy we need to talk to each other
That doesn't happen on bluesky either though. The moderation approach on bluesky means that people can control who they see, and who can interact with them. So people can still remove bigots from their timeline.
I also take issue with your insistence that bigots have the right to be bigoted and spread hate, and that their targets are somehow in the wrong for not wanting to be exposed to that hate.
We host instances for trans and gender diverse folk, to provide a space that explicitly puts their safety first.
Take away the idea of an instance as a community/identity/distinct space, and the goal for these places existing is gone. Instead of a community and a safe space, we become a generic bit of hardware that enables transphobes as much as trans folk.
That's not something I'd be keen to keep sinking my own funds in to to support.
What I'd much rather see is instance based accounts, however, with the ability to take over/migrate them from other instances, so that if an instance goes down, people can still keep their identity. It would also allow instances focused on protecting minority communities to keep doing that.
Let me clarify so I understand your position
I said why I don't use Bluesky. I didn't say it shouldn't exist, or that other people shouldn't use it. I didn't pass judgement on people who do use it, or suggest that their having a different opinion on how to deal with bigotry is an issue. I simply said why I don't use it
You then insisted that I am the problem with democracy, despite you being the person insisting that everyone has to do things your preferred way?
Do I understand your position correctly?
Bluesky is explicitly promoting their system as "choose your own censorship" kind of deal
That's why I don't use it. I am not ok with bigots sharing my network. This is true whether I can see them or not. If they're welcome, then I won't be there.
Let me know when I can disconnect from spaces that host bigots rather than just hiding them
That's not how it will fail. It will fail because it charges you for things you didn't intend to purchase
Kinda? My bare bones initial self hosted media streaming setup was put together by my partner. It's no longer bare bones, because I've since upgraded it, added new functionality and I keep it going.
I got a new PC. I installed Windows on it. I felt dirty, so I said fuck it, and installed Linux instead.
It wasn't any one specific thing, but a lifetime of windows frustrations adding up, on top of a growing frustration with enshittified tools and services in general
That was 4 months ago.
The problem is, it's more than just the upvote. I don't ban people for a single upvote, even on something bigoted, because it could be a misclick. What I normally do is have a look at the profiles of people who upvote dogwhistle transphobia, stuff that many cis admins wouldn't always recognise. And those upvotes point me at people's profiles, and if their profile is full of dog whistles, then they get pre-emptively instance banned.
I use people upvoting bigoted and transphobic content to help locate other bigoted and transphobic accounts so I can instance ban them before they post hate in to our communities.
This takes away a tool that can help protect vulnerable communities, whilst doing nothing to protect them.
It's a step backwards
Sure, if and when we get the ability to ignore federated votes
White listing encourages centralisation because it makes it really hard for new communities/instances to develop the trust they need to be included in existing white list circles.