Good faith is the key here. I'm all for disagreements leading to lengthy discussions and even some controversy as long as everyone is arguing in good faith.

I can't stand trolling, outright bigotry, and the normalization of literal fascist opinions as a mere "disagreement". If a "disagreement" (you know which ones I mean) will lead to people dying if enabled, I'm pretty happy keeping those ideas out.

Who decides whats non-discriminatory.

Nobody cares about non discriminatory different opinions.

I think this is the big thing that Fediverse platforms are missing right now. If you want to be able to ban instances yourself, you have to run your own.

Your instance can ban the offending instances, so they won't show up for you or your fellow users, and vice versa. It provides a good way to exile the offending community.

Communities can't be shut down, but they can be shut out. This is also just true in life in general.

If The_Donald were to set up shop on Lemmy.ml, they could ban the instance and the members, but they could just turn around and join another instance.

So, what do you do then? Site admins can ban the remote instance, and they can put pressure on the hosting site admins by threatening to defederate.

Let's say the new hosting site's admin gives into defederation pressure and also bans the instance and its members. We'll, then those people can set up their own server. Now, the admin won ban them.

But none of the major servers will federated with them. They'll be alone on their low population fashy instance (or not so low population - Truth Social is suppsoey the biggest Mastodon instance), effectively quarantined.

That's the best anyone can do. That's true with or without Lemmy.

When those views call for the dehuminization of others or are based on false information, yes.

Consider opening up a window and letting CO2 out

So you want censorship of opinions you disagree with?

Yes.