A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.

I think it’s a valid concern in this case.

Have you thought about the implications and consequences if we start banning non-violent expressions of opinions because someone else might find it disrespectful?

I agree with that. Big players have too much power. In theory there’s nothing that stops us from self-hosting e-mail, but in practice today it takes a lot to make it work and be accepted by the big players. I think free speech is desirable and wish that it was the norm. The best we can do is to use services that align with that ideal, and make sure that the system itself is built so that it is open for anyone to be in control over who they interact with. Even if that means someone choosing to not interact with certain others. As long as it’s easy to use an alternative when there are restrictions.

Imho, the argument doesn’t translate to countries. In Iran, the government has a monopoly on governing, and most people can’t just hop over to another country with different laws. In effect, you can be stuck with a system you don’t like.

In the digital world, and Lemmy in particular, the same is not true. If you have a computer, you can “start a new country” with your own rules. No one is forced to join, and you can’t force anyone else to do anything. As a whole, Lemmy allows all opinions. The problem is central power, and free federated software is a solution.

Being able to run your own instance with any policies you want is a strength of lemmy.