but stop at equality for everyone, not suppression of those you may disagree with

Equality for everyone requires the suppression of those who would take away that equality, otherwise you eventually lose equality for everyone. This is similar to how maximizing freedom for everyone requires restricting your individual freedom to harm others, because in doing so you remove their freedoms. Your individual freedom is less, but the total amount of freedom in the system is greater for it.

Furthermore, it is not a moral failing, or even a difficult moral quandary, to suppress people for their actions and choices. We do it all the time to murderers and other criminals, or even people who don’t shower. This can be done in multiple ways, including ways that do not involve state power. We frequently use social means to suppress people, for good or bad. A society simply works that way. And if they don’t like it, they can simply choose to stop trying to take away equality; I cannot similarly choose to stop being the kind of person they want to take equality away from.

To protect equality we must win every fight; to lose it, they need only win once. Everybody is protected by equality so long as they believe in it. I do not believe that those who do not believe in equality should be extended its benefits, for they will seek to destroy it from within like a parasite.

You can absolutely attach each VM and even the host to separate NICs which each connect back to the switch and has its own VLAN. You can also attach everything to one NIC and just use a virtual bridge(s) on the host to connect everything. Or any combination therein. You have complete freedom on how you want to do it to suit your needs. How this is done depends on what you’re using on the host for a hypervisor though, so I can’t give you exact directions.

One thing I should have thought of before; if two NICs are on one single PCI card, you probably can’t pass them through to the VM independent of one another. So that would limit you to doing virtual networking if you want to split them.

Having tried both, I found it far easier and less troublesome to just add a PCI passthrough than it is to worry about managing the network both on the host and in the VM. As long as FreeBSD supports the driver, I strongly recommend passthrough vs virtualized NICs.

Yeah, this is perfectly doable. I ran a very similar setup for a while. I’d recommend passing one of the NICs directly through to the VM and using one for the host to keep it simple, but you can also virtualize the networking if you need something more complex. If you do pass through a single NIC, you’ll need a switch capable of handling VLANs and a bit of knowledge on how to set up what’s called a “router on a stick” with everything trunked over one connection and only separated by VLANs.

Keep in mind, while this is a great way to save resources, it also means these systems are sharing resources. If you need to reboot, you’re taking everything down. If you have other users, that might be annoying for everyone involved.

I’ve used both, each for a long stretch of time; they are fundamentally extremely similar and you’ll be fine with either. I switched to AdGuard Home entirely because I could run it directly from my OPNSense router instead of a second machine. There isn’t really anything else major I’ve noticed different between them, but my usage is fairly basic. AdGuard’s interface felt a bit more mature and clean, but that’s it.

If you’re happy with your PiHole, there’s no reason I’m aware of to switch.

The idea that there’s only two options, doing nothing or complete pre-emptive defederation, is not accurate. If we can’t even acknowledge that, I don’t think this conversation will be productive.

Defederation doesn’t prevent that from happening at all. They don’t need us to do that, and I’m sure they’ll absolutely be doing stuff like that. It just doesn’t affect our servers in any way.

The idea that they can lure in people currently on the Fediverse just doesn’t seem realistic to me. Look at how many people have had an immediate reaction to completely block them; you think this is fertile ground for recruitment, really?

So did internet forums. Where are they these days? Oh, they all became subreddits as users moved away to the convenience of reddit.

Moving from isolated forums to an aggregate community is a huge quality of life change. We’re talking about them convincing people who are already on the Fediverse to move to their Fediverse server, which is a side grade, offered to people who almost all hate Facebook already. There’s no hook there, and nobody has given me an even slightly plausible pathway that’ll convince anybody to move over. There’s just vague gesturing and unspoken implications.

Nobody here wants to use their server. We all know how bad they are. We’re here because of them. But suddenly a nonspecific siren call is gonna move us all over? It just doesn’t make sense. I can think of plausible ways we can gain users from this. I can’t find any plausible way to lose users or cause damage to the Fediverse that doesn’t involve mind control.

Later on they find a way to enclose some of the fish too, and eventually all of it, removing it from the public space. The fediverse still exists, but it’s a shell without anything you want on it.

This analogy doesn’t make sense. How are they gonna take what we already have and enclose it away from us? We run the servers, not them.

If they close it off again, we go back to how things are now. Which we’re all clearly fine with, because we’re already here. Are they gonna hypnotize us on the way out and lead us pied piper style?

You really think Facebook is gonna poach users from the Fediverse, people who are explicitly here because we don’t want to be on Facebook/Twitter/etc? C’mon. This isn’t a realistic outcome.

“We have to defederate or else they’ll run incompatible code that won’t let us federate with them”

This seems like a self-solving problem to me, I still don’t understand what the hyperventilation is about.

I will never tire of people who do not grasp linguistics trying to be pedantic about words.

In a living language, words mean whatever people currently use them to mean. This is how “literally” literally doesn’t mean “literally” anymore. Most people use Nazi to refer to both 1930s German National Socialists and modern day white supremacists. Therefore, that’s what it means. English is not a dead language like Latin, so stop trying to treat it like one with regards to this one word. It just makes you look like a Nazi.