JustSomePerson

I for one, spent time blocking what I wanted to, to curate my feed, and it took time.

If that is your general approach, why are you suddenly so eager to hand over that responsibility to the instance owner? Why are you pushing for that instances should curate the feeds of all their users, rather than the users themselves?

Sure. You can. But it comes with the risk that the content you're consuming will go away.

Nobody is obliged to create things for you for free.

No, because I want the content that I consume to be financially viable. You either accept the ads, or seek out other sites with other payment models.

How about bugfixes every day if there are any, new features every month when they have been tested and QAd.

Financial explanation: Because it's cheaper to have all your users as involuntary testers, than to actually ensure app quality in-house.

If you were to study version control in a comp sci degree, you would study the way it's implemented, not how to use it. The data models for how to store and access repositories of many files with many changes is interesting, and can have different aspects depending on if it is text content or binary. Is it optimal to store each file as an aggregate of its diffs, no matter how many. Should there be snapshot points, etc?

Those are the aspects of version control that belong in tertiary level computer science. Learning how to use "git add" and "git push" don't.

No. I advocated for people that imbeciles call nazis to not be excluded from society. There is a significant difference, but if you live inside a bubble, like some fediverse serverse, you might be so brain washed that you think everybody who thinks a little bit different from you is a nazi. They're not.

Grow up. It is not possible for you to hide from the real world. The suppression of opinion in the fediverse is real. You admit so yourself two comments above. You call them nazis and evil, which is childish and unproductive. Have you considered communicating with those with different opinions instead of attempting to ban them from participation in society?

trusted to act in good faith

You are not acting in good faith when you are arguing that your members should be blocked from communicating with anybody on Meta servers, because of guilt by association. What you don't allow on your particular instances has great bearing, because it shows that you are no different from them, other than in which opinions you consider to be worthy of suppressing.

It doesn't require university level study to understand. You took Comp Sci, not applied software development. If you can pass Comp Sci, you should be able to use a system like git without it having been part of a tertiary level curriculum.

I am not claiming that there's no censorship in the fediverse. I'm claiming that there is censorship, meaning that the fact that Meta also uses censorship is no argument against them. You censor people you call nazis, they censor people who think three generations of occupation in Palestine is a bad thing. Both have problems. This piece of news about Meta censorship is not an argument against federation.

Because we are not censorship happy pieces of shit. We judge every statement for what it is, rather than applying guilt by association in three steps.

Most people who want to block Meta from the fediverse want to do it because they want to block people's opinions and statements from reaching them. They want the fediverse to be a "safe space" (a term which thankfully has lost most of its momentum in the last few years) where no dissenting or nuanced opinion is welcome. Somehow you're trying to turn Meta's similar behavior into an argument against them, even though it's an example of both organizations doing similar things (prohibiting unwanted opinions).