I consider the attitude shown by the developers here to be childish and idiotic:
Mastodon has a lot of this attitude too.
But apart from just disagreement, there's a deeper question of course: somebody can choose to run a server with (bad static word list based) censorship removed, but .. can they federate?
Clearly he wasn't a free speech advocate... but, given the right conditions, it's clear that rational arguments can fail when dealing with large numbers of disaffected people.
i have an out-of-consensus view on this: i think, e.g. that a person blatantly lying to you in a business tx should not be illegal (fraud). Not because it isn't unethical, but because laws are not the correct framework for every problem, sometimes laws cause much more harm than good. They should be used against violence, mostly.
Looks like Federation with Lemmy occurs based on the values in the config file.
"allowed_instances" appears to specify the explicit list of instances to Federate with.
"blocked_instances" would then instead be used to federate with all except those explicitly added to the block list.
So I suspect your instance would be welcomed into the explicit list until someone sees a slur and deems your instance to be non-confirming and thus the admin moves your instance to the block list.
@waxwing federation doesn't have to be topologically connected. I don't see why you couldn't have federated partitions with different social norms. just need better ways to make this less confusing ui/ux wise.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!