Two things stuck out to me as not very good arguments in this article. One seemed to be that different moderation standards make a coherent experience impossib

Two things stuck out to me as not very good arguments in this article. One seemed to be that different moderation standards make a coherent experience impossible. I think this is a fundamental difference of the fediverse. There is no one experience, and that's a feature not a bug. I think it also makes out that by banning other instances outright, instances will be largely disconnected. I think this ignores that, more or less, people agree with what is acceptable and what is not. And if they don't largely agree, maybe those groups of instances should be disconnected. I think it also assumes that this disconnected experience is somehow opaque to users, when I think it's pretty easy to figure out that you're only seeing Toots from your own server. I think that's also not a bad thing. Again, if you set aside the idea that everyone has to be on the same experience, viewing the same content, the decision calculus becomes easy. Are you happy with the depth and breadth of the content you're seeing? No? Then move instances (which is easy). My other criticism is about legality. The US has section 230 of the telecoms act, which basically allows internet companies to moderate their websites, without having to be responsible for what is posted there by users. Basically, the argument that the law will somehow sink the fediverse ignores that we made it this far. The web was allowed to flourish, in part because what you say online is largely your responsibility, not the responsibility of the sites that host the content (with a few exceptions). I'm not sure how Mastodon meaningfully changes that.