ChaiaEran

The INCORRIGIBLE Chaia, BSc

Esoteric goth-y femme. Occasionally speedy. Liker of randomizers. Queer Jewish gremlin. I make Youtube videos and stream on Twitch! Also the developer of @PushBlockPitDevlog.

My Twitch going live posts are over at @ChaiaGoingLive.

 

מיר וועלן בעסער זיין אין די גלות, מיר וועלן זיך באפריין

דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד. שחררו את פלסטין

Chaia Eran: Cute as hell, Queer AFTRANS RIGHTS NOW!TRANS YOUR GENDER
יידFree Palestine Now!!!This is an Anti-NFT Site
KEEP THE WEB Free; SAY NO TO WEB3<HTML> Learn it today!Firefox NOW!
RWBYGAMEBOY ADVANCEPRO AO3 FREAK
FIGHT FOR OPEN WEB STANDARDS; FIGHT FOR ONLINE PRIVACY; FIGHT AGAINST MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES; STAND UP TO GOOGLE!Questions or Comments? E-Mail


ChaiaEran
@ChaiaEran

So, I've been thinking about this for a few days now, ever since the really big influx of Twitter migrants started, but the reification of Cohost as a guaranteed safe space is one that makes me a little uneasy? It's good that we're calling out toxic behaviours and attempting to refrain from them, but Cohost isn't inherently safer than any other social media site. Preserving the existing relaxed culture is a good thing that I've pushed for, but we need to keep in mind that it's not because it was here first, (if the culture on Cohost were aggressive and petty before the Twitter users came, I'd be welcoming attempts to change the culture of the site,) it's because it's healthier and more compassionate, thanks to a directed effort to make it so. This kind of safety and kindness is something that requires constant effort; acting in good faith is difficult, while acting in bad faith is easy.

It's certainly easier to act in good faith on Cohost than on Twitter, thanks to design differences and a lack of an algorithm, but I'm still a little concerned with the idea of lionizing the website as inherently good-faith. We should remain critical (as in critical thinking, not as in criticism) of every space we enter, both on- and offline. Good faith action and safety aren't just always giving the benefit of the doubt, it also involves being willing to ask pointed questions when called for. I trust @staff, because they've done a pretty good job so far, and so I'm willing, when needed, to go to bat for them against bad-faith action. But that trust is predicated on their actions; it's earned, not owed.

This turned into a bit of a ramble, but I hope I've gotten my point across? Safe spaces are not inherently so, and we need to work to keep them so.


daboross
@daboross

i think this is important

the two things i would push for in a "culture" here if there is one, given what i've seen, are:

  • intentional actions to improve the space
  • avoiding toxic positivity - don't just be happy and positive at all costs

i think i've reposted at least one post along the lines of the latter, and this touches on the former nicely


DecayWTF
@DecayWTF

I think the hard truth is that people don't want to talk about ideological basis: "Toxic positivity", for instance, doesn't exist in a vacuum, it has a specific ideological basis that stems from liberalism; don't talk about real harms, don't challenge the status quo, etc. It's not a vibe we want to preserve but a specific culture with specific ideological components, ostensibly anti-racist, anti-bigotry, anti-fascist and a culture of mutual support and kindness. If you look at it from this angle there's no difference between enforced "good vibes only" and the nazi bar rule: It's engendering fascism.

The upshot is that byzantine rules and aggressive posts on "how to post on Eggbug" will not help and do not address the issue (viz. Mastodon). We collectively make this an unsafe space for fascism and, at least to a greater extent, liberalism or we can expect things to eventually go the same route every other social media site does.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @ChaiaEran's post:

I would put it: safety isn't a property of spaces, or of people, of even of communities, it's a property of behaviours. People's feeling of safety on the site is always a matter of how the community is behaving now, (as well as its recent track record); there's no resting on our laurels.

good, important stuff to be talking about. one thing about "safety" when we're not talking about the most fundamental, purely physical definitions is that it depends on shared sense of norms and values. there are some topics and modes of behavior that consenting adults engage in and consider safe, even safety-affirming (because they feel free and comfortable enough) that other adults find inherently unsafe. how do you square those differences in norms? content warnings as a deep, platform-level feature are obviously a great tool for that particular case, but there are no silver bullets for these questions.

ultimately it's up to the site's owners and all of us using it to collectively shape those shared norms and values, reiteratively, forever - "working to keep them so" as you put it. i signed up here last june largely because i trusted the ASSC folks and liked what people were posting and the general vibe, and i've continued to do so as it's grown.

and yeah i think "good faith engagement is the default" is a shared value that this site currently has that twitter very much doesn't. and i think the main difference is that twitter, as a capitalist enterprise that wants only to grow and profit infinitely and harvest ever more data etc etc, never wanted to be seen as having values of its own, because it might be forced to stand by those values in a way that loses it money. ASSC has a major leg up in that regard because they're not trying to scale to 1 billion users or whatever.

Thank you for putting into words something that I have struggled to: "there are some [...] modes of behavior that consenting adults [...] consider safe, even safety-affirming, that other adults find inherently unsafe".
It's kinda like the issue where making something accessible for one group makes the same thing inaccessible for another. I can't think of any good examples rn but a contrived example is that the tactile pavement bumps for vision-impaired folks could be a trip hazard for someone on roller-blades.

Mastodon is having this same discourse right now, partly because a lot of the existing pre-Twitter-Migration userbase are techno-optimists who are absolutely convinced that Mastodon's design and existing community norms inherently deflect and dispel abuse, and they're currently getting Eternal Novembered

in reply to @daboross's post:

I think ultimately that there will be some level of toxic subcultures present on cohost, but without a global feed people will be better equipped to maintain more healthy subcultures among their friends and tags.

in reply to @DecayWTF's post:

Thank you for this!

I think I could definitely be/become part of the problem here; I don't have a good grasp on the culture of toxic positivity besides vibes, and my summary here of "positivity at all costs" is lacking to say this least. I tried to find the cohost post that I remember regarding toxic positivity, but I hadn't shared it, and haven't yet found it.

Definitely going to sit on the ideological roots you've mentioned. I can kind of see it - I know fascism flourishes in environments where decorum and niceness are put as the one-and-only value, and that does feel similar to what I know of toxic positivity. Not exactly the same: the stuff I've seen that I'd call toxic positivity has always felt deeper than niceness - like, people would be willing to lie to themselves completely for the sake of imagining a good situation, whereas decorum feels like a thinner looks-only value system.

I don't think I'm actually adding anything here; I'm just thinking out loud in your comments 😅. I don't have the firsthand experience with this that it feels like you're speaking from.

No, it's totally fine! Like I can spout socialist theory until I'm blue in the face (which is really what this is) but things have to be meaningful or I'm just talking to myself. The reason I equate toxic positivity with good vibes only or the American social standard "don't talk about politics or religion" is that they're all effectively masking the same basic issues in very similar ways, and this is kinda what I wase trying to drive at, that avoiding conflict for the sake of keeping "drama" down is always harmful and it provides an easy route for bad actors to take hold, and this is how you get the nice, polite suit and tie fash. I don't disagree that these things are different but they're manifestations of the same or similar harmful impulses, if that makes sense.