A majority of a specific in-group voted for that rule at some point in the past? Oh wow, I'm sorry, there's no way that can be unjust.

What's telling is that the comments defending AI stay up, saying how they've never seen good arguments while banning good arguments without explanation.

But sure, it's no skin off my back. I'll block your communities and your admins and mods and advise your users to migrate. Try to learn something from this when your community implodes in a couple years.

But that doesn't make much sense.

Did the majority of the instance vote for this rule, or was it only the people who actually showed up to vote? Because if it's the latter, then it's not very representative, is it? Wouldn't the fact that many comments criticising the use of GenAI, which directly inflates AI and tech companies and the worst that capitalism has to offer, being removed show that it's not a clear majority, and you should revote?

And even when, why would anarchists vote when you've shown yourself to be draconian? When you remove and ban random users for random reasons. Isn't one of anarchists core beliefs that voting means implicit agreement with the state? With you being the state in this example.