My personal opinion is that Rimu doesn’t think b he’s trying to become king of the fediverse. I think he sees himself as a progressive fighting back against ideas, people, and movements that threaten his idea of progress. He likes that blog post so much because it positions the free and voluntary association inherent to federation as a right wing idea, something that needs order imposed upon it by a liberal democratic institution (“like the UN”). If it’s right wing to be decentralized, him trying to create a centralized authority is left wing.

I’m of the opinion that people usually believe what they say, and Rimu is no different. Why else would he share such an embarrassing article thinking it makes some convincing point? His thinking is liberal to the core, and he does not understand paradigms without centralized authority regulating behavior. It’s no wonder he doesn’t like the anarchist instances.

At the same time, belief that you aren’t power grabbing does not prevent someone from power grabbing. I don’t think Rimu will give up in the long run. Even if this episode is a loss that does more to lose allies than gain them, he is still gonna keep doing what he has been doing. He can’t use piefed to mandate his philosophy on moderation without alienating more people. He’ll never get his idea of a fediverse UN off the ground, both with how he’s acted and because many instances would never agree to something like it. If he properly reads the room, he’ll be quiet and wait for some better opportunity for mass defederation to show up. Either that or he’ll thrash around and create even more problems for himself.

Rimu, this is your third time in a week starting shit with db0 admins. None of what you’ve done recently has inspired any confidence from me in you or your projects. Given the side you picked during the recent lemmy.world drama, your posts come across more like hitpieces than well thought out complaints.

Also, wtf is up with you calling the entire idea of decentralization into question? Internet services require resources to run, and the barrier to entry for hosting an instance is relatively low. It’s absurd to call instances feudal fiefdoms when anybody with a bit of time and disposable income can theoretically set one up. What is the alternative, all those “fiefdoms” needing to report to a monarch who will only use their power to protect marginalized groups from bigotry(trust me bro)?

What makes it especially egregious is that you aren’t simply a user or even an instance admin, but the head developer of an entire section of the fediverse. You are not a neutral party arguing ideals, you are a person who could theoretically try to crown yourself king. You focusing so much of your efforts on attacking instances that you have ideological problems with is worrying.

I wouldn’t trust an admin like that to protect me from bigotry on their server, nor would I want them to dictate moderation for instances on their platform. Since you seem so keen on highlighting how your instance bans fewer people than others, how could I trust you to not mandate tolerance of a “diversity of opinions” like another notable instance that gives fewer bans?

If that was all rimu was complaining about, I’d understand. Unfortunately, he has a more ideological motivation behind this post than simply calling out AI. If letting users decide for themselves if they like this style of moderation was all he was advocating for, then why is he promoting the idea of centralizing decentralized platforms?

I am unconvinced that this particular use of an LLM for moderation is really that helpful. However, I doubt this is the only motivation behind this post.

Again, are you respecting someone’s identity? I don’t care what you think you’re doing; if you aren’t recognizing a person as the person they are, then the conclusion is that you’re mistreating someone. The world isn’t a place where your self perceptions overwrite the person you actually are.

There are plenty of respectful debates about trans issues, and tolerance of people genuinely not understanding queer topics. What cannot be debated respectfully is whatever or not to respect a person"s identity. No amount of polite language can make such a conversation respectful, as you’re refusing to do the bare minimum required to speak to that person as an equal.

Creating a tolerant space requires not tolerating intolerance. This is not an authoritarian insight, but one centered on maximizing the freedom of everyone. If you demand a space where you can debate a basic fact about myself, then that is not a space in which I am free.