I wrote last week, There and Back Again, a Fediverse Journey.
It's about Gamma the techbro. Gamma thinks that technology is can solve all social problems, so came to the Fediverse. But without systemic bias, he finds his opinions harshly criticized.This makes him uncomfortable. This new technology trying to solve social problems says he's the problem.
Why, and what happens next?
I'm resharing this because I've seen a truly disappointing number of people who follow me delete their account in response to people like me advocating suspending collaborator instances, and I've been looking and a shameful amount of them have gone back to Twitter.
Imagine "better tech solves things" being your sole ethical principle and then choosing to use lesser tech. They barely have principles and those they have they don't apply. Gross.
@lawremipsum Oh don't be unfair - just because their inaction supports the status quo which is oppressive doesn't mean they support oppression. They're just taking their time to make sure they make the right choice in "does this support oppression."
I mean, sure a bunch of people from all walks of marginalized life, from poor to academic have told them yes, but can we really fault them for not rushing into such a decision, when the costs of moving instances are so high?
@lawremipsum They all had friends on other instances, and they put their allegiance to some ill-defined bastardization of prudence. They placed "doing things the right way," in the abstract, over "not doing things my friends say hurt them," in the concrete.
I think that's a hard thing for me to grapple with. I have beliefs. I have convictions. I've stood with a cop's gun to me and said "No."
But I'd still reconsider quick if a friend said to do so hurt them.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!