which part did i misrepresent?
Yes, i was hyperbolic. but i don't think i misrepresented anything.
they said: "admins create these highly specific instances with peculiar rules, and people who want to create a profile there have to submit themselves to a highly limited set of conversations and content they can publish."
I said "Email is not a good messaging platform. Every server has its own rules and expectations. Completely different terms of service on each one."
i simply replaced the concept of social network with the dominant alternate federated messaging protocal that has the same properties. (every email server has terms of service that dictate rules and expectation of usage) I didn't address the "highly limited set of conversations and content" part because it's a complete misapprehension of how those server rules work. While i'm sure there's 1 or 2 exceptions to this servers do not dictate what you can talk about beyond "no hate speech" kind of dictation. A Star Trek server, for example doesn't mean people are ONLY allowed to talk about Star Trek. It just means it's a server for folks who like Star Trek.
they said: "what if I feel strongly about some geopolitical topic yet those kind of conversations are banned on my "LEGOholics" instance?"
I responded "Communities of like minded people are bad. We shouldn't encourage people to gather with like minded folks.
All groups of like-minded people have rules about what is and is not acceptable speech amongst them. To suggest otherwise is ignorance in the extreme. He's specifically advocating for NOT having instances like that. He's advocating against a core aspect of groups of like minded people if you don't have common (spoken or unspoken) rules around acceptable topics the group will NOT continue to exist. It's WHY we stick with a group. To advocate against something is to make a valuation of it being "bad". He's advocating against groups of people with rules about acceptable conversation topics. Therefore they are saying that communities of like minded people with the rules that cause them to come into existence and stay in existence are (to them) "bad". this isn't a misrepresentation. It's actually thinking about the logical implications of their words.
they said "the ideal solution would be to distribute all these users between many small and generic instances with no silly domain names or draconic rule sets"
Their commentary about "silly domain names" in context is obviously derogatory. Silly domain names ARE self expression and humor and fun. He is advocating against them, thus he's saying they are bad. Yes, i was hyperbolic, but it's not actually a misrepresentation. Suggesting that the rules of most servers are "draconic" is itself either hyperbole or massive misunderstanding of those rules. It seems hyperbolic, and thus he is suggesting that being forced to adhere to other people's rules is undesirable. I said "I shouldn't be forced to adhere to your community guidelines!" again. not misrepresenting anything. Hypebolic yes, but also accurate. Saying "Only rules I like should be allowed!" is just repeating the same idea another way. It's, again, not a misrepresentation. They never say they're unwilling to follow rules. Only that rules of small servers are "draconic" and there is the _strong_ implication that they don't want to be forced to adhere to them.
So. with that in mind. What _exactly_ do you think i've actually misrepresented? What interpretation of their statements did i get wrong?
Can you provide an example of a popular e-mail provider that bans users based on the content of their e-mails (and not just for straight up illegal stuff)?
