The problem here to my mind is that this was a ban for a “thought crime” and it was on another instance. OP always uses peoples preferred pronouns, even if he thinks they don’t make sense, as in this case, so he hasn’t broken any instance rules afaik. Is there a rule about not being allowed to even discuss neopronouns? On another instance? That is getting very dystopian imo. Unless someone can point to a rule that says you can’t even discuss the topic of neopronouns, then this is clearly a case of over-reach imo. PTB
The rule isn’t about discussing anything, the rule is about making directed commentary on the validity of other users’ gender, which serves as a honeypot for more hateful behavior. Ada has been explicit and open about this and Pug is not the first to receive a preemptive ban for off-instance action.
The problem here to my mind is that this was a ban for a “thought crime” and it was on another instance. OP always uses peoples preferred pronouns, even if he thinks they don’t make sense, as in this case, so he hasn’t broken any instance rules afaik. Is there a rule about not being allowed to even discuss neopronouns? On another instance? That is getting very dystopian imo. Unless someone can point to a rule that says you can’t even discuss the topic of neopronouns, then this is clearly a case of over-reach imo. PTB
The rule isn’t about discussing anything, the rule is about making directed commentary on the validity of other users’ gender, which serves as a honeypot for more hateful behavior. Ada has been explicit and open about this and Pug is not the first to receive a preemptive ban for off-instance action.
So yes to thought crime then.
I don’t think that comes off the way you think it does.