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.
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
I agree with Chaia that it is not actually software design that makes things more relaxed here, but also just the seed culture started by early users who want it to be that way. I don't think I really care about cohost being a "safe space" so much as I just want it to be a healthy space. A healthy community which isn't afraid to talk about conflicts and problems, as they arise, and also does so in a way which is mature and productive and holds space for strong emotions but doesn't lose track of the fact that we are all, hopefully, ultimately on the same side and just trying to work through this problem together; and we don't have to talk to each other the same way we shout at big distant powerful people who we aren't in community with.
I'm a big critic of toxic positivity. Those who remember me on Mastodon know that I was always the one pushing against the "good vibes only" toxic positivity that was there especially during the earlier years. I've always pushed back against people who complain about people who harsh the vibes or "trigger my anxiety" with necessary sternness and critique.
That said, I'm seeing all these anxious posts about cohost potentially being too positive, or too "good vibes only," that just seem really preemptive? Like maybe I'm not looking in the right place but as far as I can tell we mostly seem very positive and good vibes right now because we just... don't really have any active conflicts right now? Like I think it's just a peaceful moment and all the new users are so used to everything being so aggressive and hostile all the time elsewhere that you just kinda feel suspicious when things are just legit chill. I think I've definitely had feelings like that when forming healthy relationships for the first time as an adult, having grown up in a pretty toxic environment. "There's no way this person is actually just being kind and supportive to me, I don't trust them."
