@rob Authoritarianism thrives even today but most people cannot see it happening around them especially in digital spaces like the Fediverse. Everywhere digital technologies are used to control debate and silence critics. The trick is always the same: those in power say it is for safety or order but what it really does is limit dissent and hand more control over to the few. Platforms like Pixelfed are not immune. When one person or a closed developer circle can decide what is allowed and who gets thrown out it is just another version of old authoritarianism, just dressed up with new code and branding.

People celebrate decentralization but then look away when a project lead acts like a digital boss, policing where it suits him and ignoring the voices that do not fit. Users accept the leader’s authority as if there is no alternative. Many convince themselves this is normal. It is not.

The lesson is simple: digital tools that promise community can become tools of control just as fast as any authority if the people using them stop questioning and start accepting. That is why Pixelfed and dansup are worth pushing back against. Any system where one person tells everyone how things must work turns the digital world into just another place to be ruled over, not to be free.

@rob Look, the facts aren’t up for debate: Pixelfed.social is only as strong as the trust people have in its leadership and moderation. The open letter and its appendix aren’t just drama, they’re detailed, public documentation from real users and developers in the Fediverse, showing exactly where dansup and his admins have failed at basic community standards. Sure, he’s done a lot for the platform, and no one’s denying that. The Fediverse has always welcomed innovation and passionate developers.

“We believe dansup has done a lot of good for the fediverse… However, we remain confident that dansup’s actions are unacceptable behaviour coming from a project maintainer, especially considering his position of power relative to his peers, and that he should rethink this behaviour.”

This isn’t about whether the Fediverse is “better with or without” Pixelfed or even Dan himself. It’s about standards. If the people in charge can’t follow the basic community guidelines or handle criticism without lashing out, or if they use their power to silence and marginalize others, that’s not a healthy project, no matter how many users it has.

Nobody is “banning” Pixelfed.social. If someone wants to stay or use it, they can. But that doesn’t change the facts raised in the letter, or the damage that comes when a project leader abuses their position. That’s why so many are reconsidering their participation, including me.

If you’re asking, “Is the Fediverse ‘better off’ with or without Dan?” it misses the point: no one should get a pass for this kind of behavior just because they're talented or started something popular. If the price of “innovation” is constant drama and disregard for accountability, then that’s not a price the community should have to pay.

I’m staying for now (lazy, remember?), but let’s not pretend who runs the project doesn’t matter, or that good code excuses bad conduct.