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.
