Idea here is good, but I cringe at the main selling point being able to censor topics you don't like.
Aside from the obvious terrible shit the list itself looks kinda passive aggressive in tone
The more conservative demographic also has other more...professional(?) options in the form of Truth Social and Gab. At one point Gab was federated but got blocked into oblivion to the point where they decided to go standalone https://reclaimthenet.org/mastodon-blocks-gab/
I absolutely see the value of blocking and there are things I am happy to block, but I have never seen the need to block anyone based on who they don't block.
It is kind of the outrage over Elon Musk buying Twitter: people are outraged not because they are blocked or prohibited from blocking others but because someone else might not be blocked by default.
Last time I looked into this fediverse stuff, the biggest 'Mastodon' instance by number of users was affiliated to gab.com. But good luck finding that, if you check out any of the directories of instances, as they [the rest of the fediverse] pretty much all decided to blacklist the Gab instance and block users on those Gab instances from being able to interact with any of the other instances. I think, in the end Gab went off, forked Mastodon and rolled their own version.
BTW --I'm not a right-winger or supporter of Gab in any way. I have no interest whatsoever in US politics. But I did note the irony that; the first thing the kind of people who protest most loudly that we need open alternatives to Twitter et al did, when they got their hands on the control levers of their own tiny Twitter clones, was to start banning people and silencing viewpoints they disapproved of.
Libertarian Tech folks are actually a small minority in the grand scheme of things, and any I know are definitely in favor of Mastadon. But non-tech folks have a much harder time understanding and building out the platform.
Gab runs on a Mastodon fork: https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2019/07/statement-on-gabs-fork...