@resynth1943 @Hyolobrika @zleap As I stated that answers for one instance, not all. My opinion is every instance admin should write down their rules and then enforce them. Users are free to populate instances that meet their needs. If one of those needs is showing which servers are blocked, don't join one that doesn't.

@jaz @resynth1943 @zleap What if the users never consider that there might be people they can't interact with? Then they can't be considered to have given *informed* consent.

@Hyolobrika @resynth1943 @zleap I find this to be somewhat strawman. Posing it the way you did implies I do not offer informed consent. However, signing up includes affirming agreement with the server TOS. That's as informed as any other thing one can do on the Internet.

Secondly, if the general population of the Internet does not yet know that by signing up for Service A, they can communicate with users of Service A but potentially not Service B, we have a much larger problem to solve.

@Hyolobrika @resynth1943 @zleap Nevertheless, by asserting that one needs to gather "informed consent" (itself a dubious proposition) I would stand by the notion that by agreeing to a service's given ruleset before use, one is informed and has given consent to be governed by those rules when using the service.

@jaz @resynth1943 @zleap Why is the principle of informed consent dubious exactly?
Having the rules clearly stated is good. But having everything - including defederation reasons (which you have, good for you), a log of moderation actions and other things - is even better as it allows users to get an even better idea of the policies/nature of an instance.

@Hyolobrika @resynth1943 @zleap not sure where my other answer went to. Informed consent requires someone to consent to something. Usually the term implies clinical or research activity. So I'm trying to understand your use of the term of art in this context.

My point being, the use of the term in this context is a tad fallacious, and we might be better served if we can find the right language.

Someone said I was arguing semantics, but that's how covenants and legal agreements work. Semantics.

@jaz @resynth1943 @zleap When a person A gives consent to be subject to a thing B, and A is informed about what being subject to B entails for A, then A has given “informed consent” to be subject to B. How is the use of that term and concept in this context fallacious?

@Hyolobrika @resynth1943 @zleap because it infers the same level of "informed" that a human requires before being cut open by another human and having pieces of their body removed is equal to the level required to post personal thoughts to the internet.