Do you have more details about that?

Hm yes sorry simplistic analogies like this are always hard to reason about. In real life, the verdict would depend on the laws of your country, if self defence was proportionate, etc. Also, if you focus only on your personal gain, it makes sense to kill your mugger.

However, that’s not what I had in mind when writing it: I hope that I’m not the only thinking that killing someone who wants to mug you, even by force, is bloody absurd and should be avoided at all costs ? Both because one might not feel good about what they did, even if it was to avoid injury or losing money, and because this mechanic feels very unsustainable, to say the least, on the scale of a society.

Idk if this analogy makes more sense now; of course if you don’t share my opinion on this it becomes a pretty bad analogy. Maybe a better one would be wondering why most countries have abolished the death penalty (punishment is proportionate to crime, except when we decide there’s a baseline that we won’t cross for punishing some crimes that go below said baseline). Similarly, and as other commentators have said, war crimes have been agreed to be the baseline you must strictly respect, regardless of any other circumstances, including uneven conflict.

Less accurate analogy, but you get the idea: if you kill your pro boxer mugger, it’s self defence, but you’ll have committed murder. War crimes kind of define the minimum “moral standard” that can’t be crossed, even if you’re trying to define some sort of moral standard weighed by power. Seems a bit delusional to try and quantify stuff like this to me though.

I think in your case you’re definitely banning queerphobia/bigotry, which I hope most people agree is radically different from banning dissenting opinions.

Maybe the definition of an echo chamber should revolve more about what would be different if you weren’t in it? For example, I’d say I’m in a community that is an echo chamber if, when getting out of this community, I might change some of my views that previously seemed obvious. I hope that people in a queer community don’t start questioning their sexuality/worth once they’re outside of a queer friendly community - although after writing it out maybe some do :(

But then it’s not the same mechanics: if I come out of an echo chamber I might read up on some new evidence/arguments/opinions that challenge my thinking, while coming out of a queer friendly space is, as you’re saying, getting exposed to hateful comments and being weakened by these. It doesn’t seem right to say it’s an echo chamber, just like it doesn’t seem right to say there are “conspiracy-friendly” communities!

right, this is quite evocative and what I initially had in mind, but the question seems to be more subtle? A village is a single centralized unit, here instances can defederate and users can block traffic. Will threads users invade the fediverse village or just not care about it, even if they have access? Could it give an opportunity for ppl to read content that will ever only be threads (political figures. institutions, etc.) without having a meta account and using a meta app? Will the bots that apparently plague threads rn will plague the fediverse? Why don’t they now? If some instances defederate and others not, could I have one account where I talk to the tourists, and another account in a defederated instance where I’m back in my calm village?

I agree with the imagery and moral aspects, but I feel like understanding the practical implications which are not obvious to me is important to gather momentum to kick them out - I felt like people disagree on subjects that they probably shouldn’t if they both had the same understanding of the situation (which includes me).

is there a writeup somewhere that ideally goes into enough detail to clearly understand how instances/federation work and what would really happen ? I hate Meta but I realize I have no clue what threads coming means and implies, decentralized systems are very unintuitive when you’re used to conventional social media.