This filter offers a choice when the users signs up. The new joiner can enable it completely, moderately, or not at all. So in this case, it is indeed the users' choice.

This is what it looks like in the user settings

“Vote weighting”

Do we expect every single user to assess all of the toxic communities, or do we prefer to rely on admins to make decision for the userbase?

In the same way that defederation is an admin-level decision impacting all of the userbase, having those defined at an admin level seem reasonable.

“Attitude and Reputation scoring”.

This is visible for users as well, I guess I misunderstood what you meant? https://piefed.social/u/rglullis@communick.news

[–] rglullis@communick.news -2 points 2 days ago

Do we expect every single user to assess all of the toxic communities

No, I want users to have access to a list of pre-curated communities and let them customize it to their liking, like what Fediverser does.

In the same way that defederation is an admin-level decision impacting all of the userbase

Defederation is a bad way to manage conflict. It is a nuclear option that should be taken only when the offending instance (as a whole) is malicious. To stretch this "my server, my rules" philosophy further is bad design.

Good admins are like good janitors. They are not there to enforce behavior top-down.