To build on this point: I don’t get the whole “anti-echo chamber” thing and this demand we entertain said assholes. We select people to be friends we generally like and agree with. We often don’t associate with people we don’t like or disagree with. Why should our forums be some totally egalitarian social exposure? That’s literally never been the case ever. We read what we want to read. We talk to who we want to talk to. I’m not going to be guilted into listening to some jerk who thinks gay people shouldn’t marry and belong in hell. I don’t want to share a beer with them, I would never invite them to dinner in my home, so why should I have to deal with them living rent free in my mind because I saw some ignorant post of theirs and they called someone a slur? Hell, why should I be forced by some arbitrary, inconsistent moral code to deal with people who are simply disruptive/obnoxious?
I have plenty of work colleagues and family I disagree with, I read sources I don’t always love. I get plenty of exposure to other ways of thinking and ideas, at least no less than anyone else does. Do I think people can go too far and literally only surround themselves with “yes men” socially? Sure. But come on. How many of us actually spend equal time with people we both agree and disagree ideologically with?
The only people whining about defederating either don’t understand what it is or are butthurt because people are collectively showing them the door, and there is little they can do about it. 
Yeah you're right. It's not a binary choice between echo chamber and non-echo chamber. It's just an open community where trolling antisocial behaviour is discouraged. If admins of an instance are encouraging antisocial behaviour then the only solution is to defederate.
To build on this point: I don’t get the whole “anti-echo chamber” thing and this demand we entertain said assholes. We select people to be friends we generally like and agree with. We often don’t associate with people we don’t like or disagree with. Why should our forums be some totally egalitarian social exposure? That’s literally never been the case ever. We read what we want to read. We talk to who we want to talk to. I’m not going to be guilted into listening to some jerk who thinks gay people shouldn’t marry and belong in hell. I don’t want to share a beer with them, I would never invite them to dinner in my home, so why should I have to deal with them living rent free in my mind because I saw some ignorant post of theirs and they called someone a slur? Hell, why should I be forced by some arbitrary, inconsistent moral code to deal with people who are simply disruptive/obnoxious?
I have plenty of work colleagues and family I disagree with, I read sources I don’t always love. I get plenty of exposure to other ways of thinking and ideas, at least no less than anyone else does. Do I think people can go too far and literally only surround themselves with “yes men” socially? Sure. But come on. How many of us actually spend equal time with people we both agree and disagree ideologically with?
The only people whining about defederating either don’t understand what it is or are butthurt because people are collectively showing them the door, and there is little they can do about it. 
Yeah it’s just bad faith. They just want access to every space so accuse those that shut their doors on them of being an echo chamber.
Yeah you're right. It's not a binary choice between echo chamber and non-echo chamber. It's just an open community where trolling antisocial behaviour is discouraged. If admins of an instance are encouraging antisocial behaviour then the only solution is to defederate.