I find it morally wrong.
Fundamentally any mentality that perpetuates the axiom that people are by default not worth the effort is anathema to me. I find it anti-social, I find it harmful to the network.
Standing up for exclusion is not noble and harmful decisions made in fear of imaginary threats are not justifiable. While I will hold no grudge against people who disagree I will feel obligated to disagree publicly use whatever power I have to oppose it.

@Irick To re-state some of the things you said here:
• Anyone who runs a whitelisted Mastodon instance is immoral in your eyes
• Whitelisted Mastodon instances are a response to exclusively non-existant threats
• It is harmful to create whitelisted Mastodon instances
• You will hold no grudge against people you consider to be immoral in this context, but will openly attack them if you feel it will further your goals

@Irick If you truly stand behind those statements, I will assume that you've made the decision that you're ultimately correct regardless of evidence to the contrary and further discussion on the subject would be in no way productive.

@mawr
Well, firstly I don't consider morality objective. (This isn't high school Nietzsche! I just mean that I accept I don't have access to an ultimate truth on this front). I acknowledge that my position could be fallible. However, I still have a moral conviction to do everything in my power to uphold that which I believe is right, yes?
But I'm also committed to nonviolence, so... no I won't attack anyone? Do you want a point by point nuancing?

@Irick So you admit to having a potentially fallible opinion, yet also claim to be prepared to defend and uphold it with every reasonable ability you posses.

One cannot have a discussion about an opinion one is unwilling to consider outside of the context of its defense. You have to be willing to accept that you could be wrongly applying your "moral conviction."

Attacks don't have to be physical; you've hurt many with this discussion as-is.

@mawr
My admission of fallibility means I am willing to consider alternative arguments. Granted It's really hard to be both an advocate and an audience but I /do/ try to argue in good faith.
Believing I'm right to act on a moral grounds is not the same as saying it is objective or beyond reconsideration. We can hold a position and entertain alternatives as long as we are willing to accept we don't know everything about the other's position.

@Irick The context in which you have presented this argument implies a non-negotiable demand for allegiance, not an invitation to discuss. If you consider open federation a moral requirement, you're effectively calling for a holy war against whitelisters.

Your position is also fundamentally and demonstrably flawed on many fronts including:
• Whitelisting actively prevents non-imaginary abuse
• Federation is dangerous to data security & privacy