This article is confusing, it doesn’t really go into detail on the example of content that was de-platformed (DistroTube, which is still on youtube).

But it does write this as the summary lol:

Summary: The old lie that freedom (including freedom of speech) would be facilitated by the Fediverse is repeatedly being debunked, even by recent and relatively high-profile examples

Fediverse gives you the ability to set up your own instance where you can post the content you like. It does not give you the ability to make other instances link to the content you like.

If all the other instances in the Fediverse don’t like you content, it says more about your content than it does about the Fediverse.

Seems like it’s working exactly like it’s supposed to be. Unwanted content is ejected of the main ecosystem by a democratic process (each instance makes its own choice) instead of relying on a single source of moderation.

Firefox is blocking this site for not having HTTPS but just the title alone seems nonsensical: the “fediverse” can’t “ban” or “deplatform” anyone or anything anymore than everyone in town can think you’re a douche bag and not talk to you. What is stopping this person from setting up his own instance of Mastodon or PeerTube or Pleroma or whatever thing hurt his feelings by blocking him for being a Nazi or whatever?

It’s always fun to get “Potential Security Risk Ahead”.

This article is dumb as hell. The best argument it can make is that distrotube was banned from one instance and then when they set up their own it was blocked by “several” others. Who the hell cares? Even if every instance in the fedi blocked it it wouldn’t stop people from joining distrotube’s instance, or setting up their own and federating with it if they cared enough to.
Only the dumbest possible conception of the principle of free-speech could think this was a major issue.

Maybe this wasn’t the best site/article to raise the question but I agree there is a tendency for fediverse platforms to be opinionated and enforce that opinion somewhat despotically.

The how it works (go start your own instance or find another you like) is not realistic for many at this stage of its evolution.

Lemmy has done an ok job of walking the line, but there is room for the question and the responses to this post so far evidence that.

Controversial voices or dissenting views are often what drives change in society, sometimes progressively. We’ve seen over the years whose views get suppress and who by…

I’m not exactly surprised to see Roy Schestowitz taking this position. However, I think he’s making the classic mistake of assuming that centrally-issued censorship by an institution is the exact same thing as a bunch of people swinging ban hammers because they don’t like what somebody has to say.

An important component of Freedom of Speech (by extension, Freedom of Association) is the freedom of the individual to decide whether they have to listen (or in fact, associate with a person at all). I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes various parts of the fediverse can get a bit ban-happy…sometimes that sets up a toxic dynamic where the people making those kinds of announcements are at best loosely informed on what they’re spreading around. But, that’s also nothing new when it comes to online communities.

If you’re going to act like a repulsive human being, I reserve the right to cut you out of my feeds so that I don’t have to deal with you. In a sense, that puts power directly into the hands of the user.