Mastodon (afaik) already has the feature that communities can decide what outside content can enter their servers. What is the point on making it impossible for others to use the software at all? It doesn't server the purpose of protecting that community from nasty speech, because that is already accomplished by not communicating with the evil servers.
The real protection against abuse by the majority is generally through constitutions. Plus having a well educated populace.
>That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual.
I completely disagree. The individual's right to speak is greater (at least in the US) than the government's right to shut them up.
However, other individuals (or a group of individuals, such as a corporation like F-Droid) have the same right to speak, as well as the right to control the speech on their private property.
There is an important distinction there. From a legal standpoint, the government are restricted from (except in very narrow circumstances) limiting an individual's speech.
However, private actors have no such restrictions on their private property.
a "community" of individuals can absolutely express their dislike/dissatisfaction with the speech of others by banning them from their private property.
It's only the government that's restricted from doing so.
My misunderstanding. Apologies.
Upon reflection, I think my comment dovetails nicely with your point.
That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual.