ceɑꞃᵹæꞅꞇ

@ceargaest

[tʃæɑ̯rˠɣæːst]

she/her
twitter.com/ceargaest

linguist & software engineer in Lenapehoking; jewish ancom trans woman.

since twitter's burning gonna try bringing my posts about language stuff and losing my shit over star wars and such here - hi!

username etymology

bosworthtoller.com/5952

ceɑꞃᵹæꞅꞇ @ceargaest9/15/2024, 12:09 AM

Damien @eramdam

Osmose @Osmose9/14/2024, 11:16 PM

I've tried to write a longer piece several times on this and keep hating what I come up with so here's the shortened version:

Cohost, being a feed based site, doesn't have a "shared space" that everyone on the site can reliably see and participate in. What that means is that there is no one "site culture" because tons of different site cultures are being formed in cliques across the site constantly, and by extension it was never going to be possible to improve the site culture to deal with harassment—moderation was always the only viable option.

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Osmose's post:

TwoAi @twoai9/16/2024, 9:30 PM

Thank you, I've been trying to articulate a similar idea for a while.

My impression was always that cohost's limited visibility was designed to actively resist the "unified shared space" that causes so much inter-community conflict on Twitter. This isolates clique micro-cultures from each other, allowing them to grow independently and preventing top-down external intervention (whether that's "harassment" or "policing" or etc., for better and worse.) Which is why discussion of "Cohost's culture" always felt a bit weird to me — Cohost was largely an unknown to me by design! I know of the micro-communities I saw directly, but I have no idea what percentage of the website I saw, let alone what was going on in those other spaces.