I’m definitely not looking for a centrist view, in fact kind of the opposite. Other than bans on bigotry/hate speech, I really don’t want to be boxed into a singular way of thinking.

I don’t mind if I end up interacting with or hearing views from people who are more centrist or radical, as long as there isn’t an all or nothing/hive mind kind of way of thinking about those POVs.

I am definitely more left, I wouldn’t call myself a radical, but if I talked to someone who identified as a moderate, they might consider my opinions far left compared to their own POV, whereas somebody who is extreme left might consider me left of center.

I understand there are some people who truly have all or nothing beliefs, but I am also suspicious that movements on the left are often hijacked by bad actors in order to keep people as divided as possible.

Even the idea of a “tankie” as it’s used online, seems like it’s often just meant to further divide the left during a time when extremists on the far right are trying to keep people divided and distracted in order to maintain the power and control they have achieved.

It’s almost like union busting tactics being used against political beliefs instead of labor. As long as people have a core set of values they agree on regarding human rights and liberty, I feel like it’s in our best interest to unite against extremists on the far right, even if we don’t always agree 100% on everything else.

I may be overthinking the specific instance thing, and I think somebody already answered this, but I guess originally I was thinking, if I joined an instance with say a focus on technology, would I still be able to create a community with a political focus, or would I need to join an instance with a focus on politics in order to do that?

If I did need to join an instance focused on politics, would I then be 100% constrained by political beliefs of that instance to fit a narrative? Like if I felt there was evidence that justified a criticism of someone that’s normally placed on a pedestal, would I be free to say that.

It seems like most instances would allow political communities even if the focus of the instance isn’t political, so probably a moot point anyway.

I’m not really looking for any one specific perspective, I just don’t want to help strengthen an echo chamber whether it’s spreading disinformation, edge lords saying shitty things to make some kind of Fred Phelps like point about free speech, or just set on ignoring valid information in order to keep pushing an agenda regardless of facts

I feel like a “good balance” inherently means accepting that you will probably see some things you don’t agree with or support, but you can also present your own case for why you don’t agree without attacking the person who posted it, or just keep scrolling past that to something else.

A bad balance would be just imbalance where everyone in a community is trying to push one single opinion/agenda, and if anything contradicts that opinion, even if it’s well supported by evidence, it results in removal of content or a ban.

That seems to be the real root of suppression of information. Like if someone is told from the time they join an instance or a community that bigotry/abusive speech isn’t allowed, and then they use a bunch of slurs or abusive language, they’ve violated a rule, and it seems like that really shouldn’t surprise anyone that would need to be addressed.

If someone can’t present evidence contradicting a popular narrative, or critique an argument, idea, or a public individual without getting banned, that is an issue.

People can disagree with what is said/downvote it/present their own evidence why they disagree/or ignore it and block the person, but if it’s not intentionally violating a rule, you shouldn’t have a bunch of people reporting it as being a violation just because they don’t like it.