Ask Lemmy

If you're pushing for restricting certain views for a few days, that's still censorship. You can argue whether it's justified or not, but it's still censorship.

Regarding whether it's possible or not; technically it is. There are certainly instances or groups of instances that have imposed strict federation requirements and closed themselves off in little bubbles, for better or worse. You'd probably not get the entire fediverse on board though, especially if it's "just an experiment".

Also, these people are political figureheads; blocking discussions about them won't actually solve anything. People will still talk about their policies and opinions. If you block that, people will argue about what should and shouldn't be blocked (hint: it isn't self-evident).

I think the system we have works fine. Explicit political things are usually behind comment warnings (on Masto). Many communities have "no politics" rules (although imo moderators should be better about that...).

Also, there is so much bad news on the fediverse that doesn't traditionally count as politics. Imo it's a bit naïve to assume that banning discussions about certain people will magically make people happier.

You're getting the response you expected, and that's just how it is, but I am here in solidarity with being so FUCKING BORED of having to hear about these motherfuckers all the time.

Why do you want to control what other people say so much?

If you want to live in a bubble, use filters, the rest of us can just continue to live outside.

Its unhealthy to ignore and hide away from problems of the world.

If you want to avoid that sort of content, either setup keyword / instance blocks to control what you see, or go offline entirely for some time.

To follow your suggestion though - theres no one person/team that controls the fediverse. To get, for example, all trump posts banned across all the fediverse you would need agreement from all instance admins to agree to it, and enforce it