Rud @rmerriam@qoto.org

@kefir

https://qoto.org/about/more all our extra features are listed

@trinsec

#education #books #programming #cpp #cpp20

Looks like "C++20 - The Complete Guide" by Nicolai M. Josuttis is finished (he allowed to buy it while being written).

I haven't bought this book yet, but I got his two books about #cpp17 and move semantics.

He's great educator, I can't recommend more! His videos are also very useful.

Bartłomiej Filipek is also great author if you want to refresh C++ knowledge.

https://cppstd20.com/

Since Mastodon saw its initial popularity circa 2017, I've noticed that most users and those reporting on it either don't think about the Fediverse as anything more than Mastodon, or treat its history as beginning with Eugen Rochko and the beginning of Mastodon. In fact, Mastodon is the latest in a long line of federated social networks, going at least back to Identi.ca, and though I wasn't around for all of it,I find this history pretty interesting. (Thread; boosts welcome!)

I've been thinking a lot about the discourse around moderation, Black folks' experiences, and the culture here. This is a longer post to dig a bit into how we can discuss and change the culture here to be more inclusive and equitable and just.

First step is to stop doing band-aid solutions. Folks who keep saying "we're a community of builders" in response to social critiques or saying "just make your own server or move" need to take a step back and consider that is coming off as ignorance at best and racist at worst. It's a band-aid solution that doesn't truly solve the inherent problem that impacts the network as a whole.

People shouldn't *have* to move servers. The server ought to change and be more inclusive, which means tackling the culture of that server and how it moderates. And if they do decide to move servers, they shouldn't have to deal with it again there either. It's the overall culture that contributes to the harmful bigotry people may face in a server.

Culture exists everywhere, including in a "community of builders." If you don't deal with the culture that causes harm to some people, then you can't claim your culture is "inclusive" or that there is an "engineering" solution to a cultural problem.

Dr. Flowers (shengokai@zirk.us) made some excellent threads that analyze the situation on Mastodon -- specifically social side of it. https://zirk.us/@shengokai/109380372543079977 Is one of the critiques. Go read them all! He spoke with folks who been here a long time and dug deep for his analyses.

Now, is there a solution to the issues of culture here that have consciously or not caused harm to marginalized folks?

Yes, there can be by coming together and having these discussions.

However, only engineering solutions isn't gonna cut it. Although Mastodon does need some engineering solutions (the moderation can be improved upon greatly with some better engineering. The protocol is wonky that could be improved too), but that will not fix the culture.

What fixes the culture?

Discussions like these. People willing to listen, to be uncomfortable, to confront harmful attitudes, and unlearn and build up new ways of being.

That's part of what being in community IS. We need to unlearn all the time. We need to listen, be uncomfortable, be flexible, be willing to change.

Change is necessary. It is not either good or bad - it's a neutral force that can be weaponized in a bad way (see Elongated Musky's twitter takeover) or in a good way (people building more just, equitable, sustainable, and accessible platforms).

But change is needed. Change needs to be done on a tech level, a culture level, and on a personal level.

So think about behaviors witnessed here -- behaviors you do too -- think about what norms Mastodon users, especially those who helped build it or been here a long time, enforce.

Some of the norms are good. Such as people defaulting to using alt-text for their photos and video screenshots (thank you!).

Others are a good idea that can be weaponized in painful ways

For example the CW: first situation I'll use to discuss this is: its utility to avoid triggering panic or pain for those with trauma is good. This is being mindful of those around us and seeking to create a culture of care.

Second situation: people trying to force Black folks and other marginalized identities to cover their posts because it made the person uncomfortable is harmful. This puts the marginalized person in a position of having to CW all their posts as the oppression faced often colors their interactions in most spaces, so trying to write about their experiences without mentioning it would be difficult. (It's difficult for me as a disabled nonbinary person, and I don't have to deal with the intersection of race too.)

In the first CW situation, the poster makes a conscious choice to be mindful of others - the poster makes the decision and holds agency over it. Their decision is theirs alone.

In the second CW situation, readers with more privilege (thus more power) try to coerce the poster with less privilege (thus less power) into a specific action to lessen the reader's cognitive dissonance and uncomfortable emotions. This is a power imbalance, and if numerous people with more power and privilege barrage the poster, the power imbalance tips into harassment.

If we examine who gets targeted the most for the "put a CW on this" when sharing experiences, we can also see an imbalance where marginalized populations get hit harder - this is a consequence of the power imbalance within the culture itself.

To be clear, for someone with less privilege, they hold less power in these situations. So asking a poster to put in alt-text on an image would not fit the second situation I described above. The less privileged individual is seeking access to what everyone else already has. That is not and should not be equated with someone who seeks to silence or cover-up the story of another regardless of intent.

That power balance inherent within privilege is also a cultural aspect that needs discussed. I used CW as a way to model thinking about how norms within a culture create power imbalances. Mastodon is not immune to the wider cultures of people's home countries, and there are many countries across the world that privilege specific groups over others that can be replicated into Mastodon's culture consciously or unconsciously. That needs examined too.

Norms of how discussions and change ought to go also need examined and possibly changed. Think about interactions here, think about whose voices get heard the most, think about who moderates, who owns servers, who writes the code, etc. All of these factors have a role in building and shaping culture.

And yes, even code can be biased as it is written by human beings, and we're biased beings. (There is an excellent book by a Black author that discusses this actually called
Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code by Ruha Benjamin).

These are important questions if we are to build a community that is equitable, just, consensual, accessible, sustainable.

Yes, this seems like a lot! But that's why we do it through conversations. With actions that build up over time. Nothing can or should be done all at once. Community building takes *time* and commitment.

Make sure to listen to those most marginalized. When we care and uplift our most vulnerable, giving them access and support, then we help all of us.

Thanks for reading!

Observing what some are calling "growing pains" with how Mastodon instances moderate minority voices is reinforcing what free speech advocates like @popehat have preach for years - that it is the ability for minorities to share their perspectives even if that is uncomfortable for the majority which is the most important function of free speech.

It’s #FollowFriday so I hope folks utilize the hashtag to find my account here!
Give me a boost! Maybe if I can show some of the big accounts on Twitter that it’s possible to grow sizably and quickly here, too, they’ll migrate over!