• No server operator needs to federate with you.
  • No server operator needs to tolerate things they don’t want on their instance.
  • No user of an instance needs to personally curate their own extensive never ending blocklist of users and channels they don’t want to see.

Quit your pseudo-intellectual whining and choose what instance(s) work for you. If you think regularly interacting with shit content somehow helps you stay out of an echo chamber then go ahead and make a second account on those garbage instances full of hateful people. Then you can read both the decent servers and the trash ones and be the fedora wearing ackshually right fair and balanced uber nerd you always wanted to be.

Edit: The huge number of upvotes on this post compared to the low numbers on the whiney imposers’ posts is proof of exactly where this community places its priorities.

  • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “…b-b-buh-but muh fReE sPeEcH!!1”

    -idiots who don’t understand the 1st amendment only protects speech from the government, not individuals or corporations and it definitely doesn’t protect them from the consequences of their words (never mind the fact that it only applies to one country)

    • God@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is a common misunderstanding. First of all, this is a Canadian instance. There is no American constitution ruling over it. Second, free speech is not limited to the American constitution, or to governments. It is a concept that is related to people’s ability to express themselves, not necessarily in relation to a governmental power.

            • God@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Still, free speech can be pursued despite the unavailability of a first amendment. I myself do not like being restricted in what I can say, so if I am limited, I will try to fight this limitation, whether I am sponsored by daddy Obama’s freedom drones or not. Now, if I went around waving a print of the first amendment that would indeed be ridiculous, especially being in Europe where it’s not a concern of governments or the people in general.

              • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sure, freedom of speech can be pursued anywhere, to varying degrees of risk.

                Canada or Norway? Sure, you’ll probably be fine!

                Russia or China? Depends on what you are expressing.

                  • Djeece@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Canada scores higher than the US in most freedom of speech indexes/rankings.

                    I have a feeling you’ve bought bridges before, haven’t you.

      • Senator Bum Cuckets@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you implying that because the concept freedom of speech exists everyone is inherently required to follow it? What point are you trying to make??

        • God@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. I’m saying that the presence or absence of the first amendment does not preclude the pursuit, or lack thereof, of free speech. I’m saying that free speech can be perfectly pursued or restricted in the absence of the american government, and that the first amendment is simply a statement for Americans, by Americans, on what free speech means in terms of government regulation.

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The supreme court has also ruled that “the right of the people to peaceably assemble” includes groups telling people they disagree with to leave. Freedom of association includes freedom to not associate

      • God@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We’re not Americans tho. Supreme Court can go fly paper planes somewhere else.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          100%. My point wasn’t that the supreme court and the constitution are global law. Just that if people are gonna make first amendment argments, they need to realize that they’re stupid as hell if they think the first amendment gauruntees they be allowed to say anything anywhere to anyone