[perihelions]

Let's be realistic. The only question is whether they'll censor dissident speech globally for the world audience—or merely georestrict it to individual nations falling to autocracy.

Coming from Silicon Valley companies, all the federation stuff aren't sincerely-intended ideas to promote free society values. They're an escape hatch. It's a free-speech zone to divert unwanted activists onto—away from the company and its brand, and away from its users—where they can blow off steam quietly. And it's something their PR can point to to deflect accountability for the awful things they will definitely end up doing, in their uncompromising pursuit of market share. ("Oh, we're not really censoring that; it's only censored on the main corporate instance, which is the only one people use").

[PaulHoule]

With distributed moderation the repressive government can, in principle, publish its own labels, but by publishing labels they make public what it is they want to suppress.

Federated social media could be used for very bad purposes and it would be impossible to stop. Consider this situation

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

in the centralized case we can point to Facebook as a responsible entity. The thing is Facebook later got kicked out of Myanmar not as accountability for those crimes but because they were insufficiently pliant to the government. In the future a country like that might just run its own Mastodon network where it is all genocide all the time.