It seems like we agree: the whole point of Mastadon is to do something that nearly all users don't want and actively fear - being forced to trust both the intentions and the opsec of anonymous individuals who are effectively beyond the law, and being blamed for trusting them if anything goes wrong ever.
Do you comply with the CCPA or GDPR, or are the users on your instance empowered by being given the "choice" to give you unlimited access, use, and retention of their data without their informed consent, even when it violates civil and criminal law?
If you think data privacy laws are wrong and intend to violate them, you should say so in a way that makes informed consent possible. If you're comfortable with rationalizing violating informed consent in some ways, it kind of implies the "content in accordance with your preferences" may similarly contain content of non-consensual acts that are also illegal.
Do you comply with the CCPA or GDPR, or are the users on your instance empowered by being given the "choice" to give you unlimited access, use, and retention of their data without their informed consent, even when it violates civil and criminal law?
If you think data privacy laws are wrong and intend to violate them, you should say so in a way that makes informed consent possible. If you're comfortable with rationalizing violating informed consent in some ways, it kind of implies the "content in accordance with your preferences" may similarly contain content of non-consensual acts that are also illegal.