IMO, plenty of nuance lacking in the discussion here.

1. Being able to defederate whenever you want is the point of all this. Freedom of association. It’s not a big deal.
   • EDIT/ADDITION: someone defederating from something you enjoy doesn’t mean that you can’t continue to enjoy it or that they have defederated from you personally. Each of us managing our own situation here is the whole point. It’s not personal. It’s not about you.
2. This especially goes for instances that are trying to create safe spaces for vulnerable people, as blahaj.zone is. To all the critics here, the job of such moderation is probably harder than you realise. There appears to be little empathy for what such an effort is trying to achieve. Moreover, it almost certainly will involve decisions that will not make sense to you if you don’t belong to the instance’s demographic. It’s also ok, given their circumstances, that they make decisions that seem excessive … because they have a bigger job to do than ensuring that they’re not too Puritan etc
3. This is even more especially so when it comes to something as intrinsically controversial, problematic and illicit as CSAM.
   • Just today a report came out stating that fediverse has a CSAM problem, where such content being masked by appearing alongside otherwise acceptable material is part of the problem. So maybe not fucking around with this shit as an admin makes a lot of sense, and maybe being less cavalier as a community about this issue might actually be necessary if we are all to enjoy our free social media ecosystem. We’ve lost one instance to being carefree about this stuff (vlemmy). And is “adorable porn” so important that it needs defending?
   • See Verge Article and Mastodon thread by author of report