You know, the thing that gets my attention concerning how safety concerns have become a sticking point as more and more people join the fedi is how white people are defiantly defending what is rather than envisioning what could be.
The refusal to see outside of what they see is best is one of the most defining characteristics of white people in the fedi and one of the main obstacles to progress, as we are clearly seeing the need for an improved fedi experience across the board.
This is a microcosm of what Martin Luther King Jr. said about how the white moderate is the greatest obstacle to progress because they continuously side with order over justice.
Any thinking person can see we need better adaptable experiences in the fedi and platforms that better serve the safety concerns of the people.
The way I see white people bitterly fighting to keep a status quo that no one agreed on is the main driver of conflict as the fediverse grows, underscoring yet again the challenge of this space is not technology.
It's culture. And whiteness, as Du Bois identified years ago, is committed to fighting to assert itself in yet another new space.
@Are0h I might suggest as a next step that you start your own instance, if you are in a position to do that, based on your vision of what a better society might be. That might serve as a model for going forward toward a society that is truly equal and free while ensuring that the vulnerable are protected, regardless of race.
@BertL The thing is that telling someone who is experiencing racism to go build something without it is literally making them do the work. I'm white, so I don't experience the exhaustion that must come from having to explain why this isn't fair, but don't you think it's on the people responsible for racism to have to do something about it?
>> on the people responsible for racism to have to do something about it?
The people responsible for racism don't want to do anything about it. That is a societal problem mirrored by social networks. How do you convince those to change their behavior?
As long as I'm jumping in... reflect that moderation works both ways. The deplorable ones can report what they don't like, also. A concerted effort to do that resulted in problems for an instance that doesn't deserve the problems.
Mastodon's design puts the power of moderation into the individual's hands. You can block individuals and instances. Consider that one person's safety or trigger issues are not the same as another's. (I have a trigger issue, so I understand that problem.) How much of that individual power do you want to give to an authority?
What is the one simple, single change you would like to see? Not something big like centralization that reworks Mastodon.
