Post
(4/?)
Whatever the reality of the situation is, it's complicated, and the solutions will come from slow, careful, respectful community building and outreach. Not by slinging accusations around, and spewing toxicity into the spaces where people are trying to get fiddly technical work done. That kind of thing - however well intentioned - is just as likely to drive away people of [insert identity category here] as anything else.
yeah exactly this. the ideal case would have a fairly singular shared understanding of "this is where you can talk about activitypub", but operated in a decentralised and federated manner.
Good discussion! I see it more as multiple understandings of "these are places where people talk about ActivityPub, and here are the qualities of the different places". For example I don't think there's shared understanding of SWICG (and W3C in general) as a place where fascist organizations are first-class participants and there are systemic barriers to women and feminist organizations. I don't think there's shared understanding among people who participate on SocialHub that it's an anti-Black space.
It is important to note that the substrate is only conceptually centralized in how things ultimately come together.
What value does this conceptual centralization add ?
@laurenshof@indieweb.social @smallcircles @fediversereport@laurenshof@connectedplaces.online
I share your concerns about the variety of issues with inclusion in the mentioned spaces. For me, framing the need for a centralised substrate for a decentralised network actually further accentuates how important those problems are.
For example: If there are 10 different forums to discuss FEPs, and a few of those forums are racist, than thats bad
If there is 1 forum for everyone to discuss FEPS, and that forum is racist, than thats extra bad
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
