“On principle what specific words do you want to say” lol yeah OK. You need to go understand what “principle” means, by definition it ignores specific circumstances.

When what I can say is subject to someone else’s dictat, de facto they have power over me. The interesting thing about that is that the kind of people that seek that out aren’t the kind of people who wield it wisely or fairly. I avoid giving others power over me, I can’t always prevent it, but I avoid it where I can. That’s the principle we are talking about, whether I want to give someone that power, not whether I agree with them on what words should be said. And that’s what this whole speech shit is about, not words, it’s about power. Generally I would agree with those people on what words should not be said, what I don’t agree with is giving them the power to tell me or other people that we can’t say them. I used to do the compromise thing, but those people inevitably overreach and begin to try to control what ideas are allowed to be discussed, because again, it’s about power and they’re power hungry subhuman scum who just want to dominate others.

No matter where you go on fedi, it’s one type of toxic or another. Either it’s people shouting the n word, or it’s people sharing drawings (at best) of little kids, or it’s power hungry subhuman scum who just want to dominate others. It’s an architectural problem endemic to the federated network architecture. So I prefer an architecture with less discoverability but which gives the user the power to censor their own feed how they see fit. There’s no real reach on either, but at least people can have their echo chambers and nobody can lean on the architecture to silence the people they don’t like.