https://twitter.com/pati_gallardo/status/1590485665535643649?s=46&t=hpE2Unzsn-9qKirLfo3tYA
@patricia thanks for writing this.
Folks here on #Mastodon should read this, and take this seriously.
Clearly, there's a culture around how things are done here at Mastodon, but maybe there is a better way to teach folks about that culture instead of blocking/banning folks outright.
If #Mastadon is to be a place for well-meaning folks on the internet, threatening people may not be the best way forward.
And it is hard to know who means well, but @[email protected]'s call out is pretty clear cut #IMHO
an instance where "well-meaning" is not clear-cut:
I have refrained from posting anything about last night's elections here in the US, because I know I would be dinged about CWs. That makes me not want to post about elections/politics.
That does not feel very free-speech-y.
But I can also easily imagine discourse around US politics and elections getting out of hand (as intentioned by the OP), so a CW may not be a bad idea for all things politics (?). I dunno!
I had a similar experience when I first joined. I had someone thought police me about not wrapping a post about UK politics in a CW. It stung. I just wanted freedom to express myself.
But when I read the guy's post with a clear head what he was actually telling me was that he wanted to be able to scroll through things faster, and return to #UKPolitics posts when he had time to digest them in one go.
Seems to historically be a thing here.
@mackaj @diego yea. Something I am learning here. Certainly a new experience on social media. I just figured that CW would be used for the typical things that needed warnings — Violence, Nudity, etc.
This seems like a more extensive use of a CW system.
I guess I was comparing this to the rating system that movies use… but that is more about content being age-appropriate/not.
This clearly is different.