saikatdIt's easy to blame others for the toxicity. But those of us who moved here -- are we introspective about the mistakes we made inadvertently?
The unfortunate aspect of social media is that it isn't very social. It quickly descends into cliques or closed communities, where echo chambers thrive. There is no real egalitarianism, even though we claim to uphold it.
When we start recommending lists, people to follow, we end up building social capital that is inherently non egalitarian. It becomes an exercise of our privilege, or adding to the privilege of others. How is that egalitarian?
Isn't everyone equally good enough to follow? Should I arrogate the right to recommend others? Why can't I leave people to decide for themselves? And why can't they exercise their agency to discover new voices, new thoughts?
This inherent tribalism (is social media parochialism) is inherently toxic by nature. It ended up justifying all sorts of toxicity that we eventually witnessed on #birdsite. But we never thought to introspect. Instead, we brought the same habits here. The same privileges and the same inequalities.
So here's what I going to do differently here. I am going to follow more people. Hear new and more voices. Listen. And not recommend anyone. Everyone is good and if you need to follow or hear someone, you will find them. You don't need me.
Papa Shark 
@Saikatd Following you just for saying that everyone is good. On birdsite, I wouldn't follow people with a lot of people simply because they won't follow me back or even engage. Of course, I'm not saying you HAVE to do either, but as a late joiner to Birdsite, I felt the system was already gamed in favour of the early birds.