Neither mattered in that case. It was just a conundrum. Something a lot of people wanted to boycott had a AAA game built for it.

I assume you're coming on the side of Nathan, but can't you see why people were going to have a strong reaction about posts about the game surfacing in the feed? It was a wedge issue. I'm not on either side, except I am against those who actually threw those insults at Nathan, which I'm pretty sure were a tiny % of the people who disagreed with him. I think if they had merely expressed frustration about the situation but not gone off the handle the same thing could have happened, albeit more slowly.

This is the fundamental fallacy of modern social media, that expressing frustration is action. Nathan wasn't going to change, and shouldn't have to.

The advancement of decentralization presents an actual action disapproving users can take: leave for another instance, even by creating their own. Fragmentation of communities is a feature, not a bug.

They attacked Pikamee. If you don't know who Pikamee is, that's like stamping on puppies.

What does that mean?

It's not entirely wrong: a space with peers is a safe space. It's how e.g. recovery of PTST for veterans or rape-victims work too, I'm told. It's also why clubs have a door-policy.

In this case, safe space means both "only likeminded", i.e. gatekeeping - door policy, as tech, policy and features to protect: good privacy defaults, permissioned access, privacy features etc.

So in case of anything politic and not say hobby circle - an echo chamber

For example I wouldn't consider rule "no politics talk" to be echo chamber on any social space but banning/shadowbanning one kind of leaning vs the other would certainly lean to that.

Then again it is not as simple as some topics just produce people that cannot actually hold conversation about what they talk about and are more interested in throwing their piece and not trying to honestly discuss anything. The unkind extremisms can be banned without turning community into echo chamber even tho technically kicking the <person> having <view> would fall upon "banning one side of politics"

Or on the other side, would you consider post discussing BDSM kinks of some ballet person to be on-topic and belonging to ballet community ? Or who they gave money for political stuff ? Would those comments improve that community or just be off-topic waste of page space ?

While overall the Fediverse is a kind place, it's the people that make or break that. And people are fallible.

¹ I'm working on a longer blog-post, but need some distance first, else it's just a reconing/grudge- or sounds like one.