And thus we see the sham of Mastodon, where people are supposed to be able to go for freedom from censorship and jagoff moderators... but where swaths of content or users are banned.
Once you understand the subtlety, it is no longer "the sham of mastodon":
ActivityPub, the protocol, is the freedom you describe.
But individual servers, using the mastodon software and activitypub protocol, they may or may not, depending on server admins.
If you don't like content bans or user bans, you have three options:
(1) find a mastodon server with the same values re freedom/censorship as you have.
I chose #3, after going so far as to set up an account on an instance. A couple other major issues killed it for me; the biggest being this bizarre, rabid hatred in the Mastodon community of being able to SEARCH content. I'm mystified that a tech-savvy segment of the population wants to publish material online and then "hide" it. I mean... how is that not monumentally ignorant?
And then there's the implication that you're supposed to choose a server based on some "interests" or "values." No. My interests change. This is supposed to be a global medium where ANY topics are discussed. Why should I be asked to pigeonhole myself in a special-interests community? Yes, I realize that some instances are "general," and content is propagated across instances, but I think this whole idea is dumb from the outset and creates confusion amongst the general public.
This goes back to the lack of search, too. If I'm interested in a topic, I expect to be able to search for it.
And finally I don't think your #1 is a solution, because the server I choose might be banned by other segments of the network and now I'm not reaching anyone. So... I still say this "freedom" is a sham.
The recent 4.2.0 release has introduced an opt-in search feature, so that's changing.
About half of Mastodon instances are on 4.2 now (according to FediDB), and it looks like future releases will prompt existing users to check whether they want to opt-in.
Maybe you have those options but anyone outside of the technically savvy (aka the mom test) is not engaging in a system where they are forced into that situation as a rule of using the platform. I'm not recommending a site to my mom where I have to explain why she needs to sign up for a 2nd or 3rd time with a user/pw to access the content she already invested time/energy in finding/following because it got delisted.
The early popular services on Mastodon 100% eagerly enforce hyper moderation...so yeah, basically the only large active community there is going to be a very in-group subset of technical users, with some niche services offering broader access.
Despite the best possible opportunity coming about with Twitter nothing in the year since then has indicated otherwise.
Stop getting your mom signed up on awful, unmoderated servers, then.
I manage a Mastodon instance. When I disconnect from another server, I explain the reason to the users on my instance. I've never once disconnected because I disagreed with another server's politics. I have cut off servers that post literal Nazi content (like swastika flags, extreme antisemitism, etc.), content that's illegal in the USA where I live, and other reasons that go far beyond "things I disagree with". I'll continue to do so. And I get new users signing up because they appreciate that I disconnect from that filth.
And from what my other admin friends say, that seems to be the standard practice. Sure, there are some instances that disconnect much more quickly, as is their right. Most don't. The only servers that regularly get cut off from the rest of the fediverse are the ones hosting truly vile content, and by that, I don't mean "this person has people in a political party I don't like", but like their public timeline is full of people making 'kill all the black people' "jokes". Darned if I'll tell someone they're wrong for cutting the link to some of the truly, genuinely abhorrent instances out there.
> Stop getting your mom signed up on awful, unmoderated servers, then.
Ah yes, because it's so easy to figure out which of the thousands of Mastodon servers is not awful and is properly moderated. Or has any guarantees that it will be properly moderated in the future.
There's a big blue button on their homepage leading you to the general instance. You pick that. Instances don't matter for most people. If you aren't most people, you'll understand what that means by using the platform.
As for moderation, Mastodon does have plenty of moderation and federation allows for responsibility to be divided among server/instances owners. If anything, it scales better than a centralised alternative.
> ActivityPub, the protocol, is the freedom you describe.
Disagree. ActivityPub, the protocol, is oriented around a world of first- and second-class citizens (server operators and users), and very much nudges you towards living under the thumb of a local petty tyrant. Yes, you notionally have a way out (although in practice if the cabal (TINC) decides to defederate you there's not much you can do), but defaults and practices matter.
