@jdp23
I actually disagree on the big/small dichotomy, and I'm not the first. I think the main error is that the author goes at it starting from their perspective and believing that it's all just opinion. He does understand that it's not so much about "small" but about safety, but doesn't understand that safety is literally a life-or-death situation.

The Big Fedi mindset really is the Priviledged Fedi. People who have never and will never suffer from systemic discrimination too often leading to death, and who won't bother leave their front seat to the people who actually have problems in their lives.

From here we understand that if the appreciation of safety/harm is not the same, then the appreciation of what is safe is not. At the core, being open to messages from everyone in the world is seen as "good for big fedi" because it is safe enough for them, but "bad for small fedi" because it is actively unsafe. Secondary services allow discovery, which is still safe for some, but unsaf for others. etc...

No one actually wants to keep fedi to themselves like the "small fedi" seems to imply. It's just that being small is safe. Look at the discussion happening here: yes, ok, everyon agreed, no one wants fascism. But fascism is the easy one. What about racism ? No one wants racism, yeah, but who/what is racist ? Is AI racist ? I would argue that it is easy to see why it is, but it's not clear to everyone, especially _those who have never and will never face systemic discrimination yet keep having an opinion about it_.

AI is unsafe. Big tech is unsafe. Capitalist entities are unsafe. They can have all the fedi endpoints they want, it is actively unsafe to have them connected to everyone. Allowing them to be important pillars in our communication is opening ourselves to harm, but some will be harmed more (death) than others (service is too expensive). _This_ is the root of our discussion here.

Rather than splitting the visions in two, I want to urge everyone who believes in "Big Fedi" to understand that others aren't stupid, aren't tribalistic, aren't elitist but have heightened needs for safety. The nice things is that that level of safety is good for everyone, so "big fedi" people should just help the fediverse be this safe _by default, for everyone_. Make it so that we have access to Big Tech but Big Tech doesn't have access to us. Keep AI out of our communities.

I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this but my guess is that our most important change will be to go consent-first. "everyone can talk to everyone" is a harmful mode to operate under, so it's a very bad default.

@benpate @scottjenson @toddsundsted @davidgerard @thisismissem

I love this. It’s like, sure interview your customers to see what kinds of stuff they like buying. But the GOLD would be talking to the people who passed by your store and DIDN’T come in.

@johannab @scottjenson @thisismissem

@rakoo okay, i follow all of this. if possible, help me understand what "small fedi" looks like from the inside for others. i literally built my own server so that i could build exactly the windows and walls i wanted. i understand myself and my own needs. i would like to understand others'.

@jdp23 @benpate @davidgerard @thisismissem 

@benpate @thisismissem

I'm branching now and I'll get back to the DM you sent me and comment in GitHub, but the strategic application of just the right amount of friction into the UX is really underappreciated. The goblins are out there, your megaphone might be picked up, but if it has a little design element of some goblin-offending colour choice that non-goblins look at and think "huh, odd, but doesn't bother me none..." that's a good move.

@jdp23 @davidgerard @benpate @rakoo @scottjenson @thisismissem @bookandswordblog

There is more important values than “free to insult” speech.

Quote German Basic Law, Article 1.1:

**Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority**

Which just about kills the “Big Fedi” idea

@toddsundsted
You may have a look at the history of PlayVicious, a black instance that was harassed up until its closure for not playing into white supremacy:

https://logicmag.io/policy/blackness-in-the-fediverse-a-conversation-with-marcia-x/

Jon's site is also a good place where to learn the challenges of marginalized communities, and has some nice points here:

https://thenexusofprivacy.net/mastodon-hard-fork/

Finally, @ are0h@polychrom.ing will have interesting insights on what to do

@jdp23 @benpate @davidgerard @thisismissem

@benpate tolerance of intolerance just leaves intolerance. we need a loud and forceful nazi exclusion policy. you need to understand their goal is genocide.

@benpate @thisismissem the fact you call antifascism a 'purity test' tells me you're either profascist or deeply deluded

@crumbleneedy Yep. I completely agree.

No tolerance for intolerance
Loud, forceful exclusion policy for all kinds of bad actors.
Genocides

It seems like you might be joining in good faith, so I'll try to engage. But let's be civil - I blocked a bunch of people yesterday who were only interested in speed-running Godwin's Law.

Is there a way to do all of the above in a way that doesn't alienate the ignorant masses who aren't so finely tuned to the subtleties of online hate?

@rakoo oh blush. Thanks! And yes I completely agree about the problems of Evan's dichotomy. I find his discussion of the "Big Fedi" mindset accurate and useful, but his mischaracterization of opposing views -- starting witih the name he gives to them -- is blatant.

And totally agreed both about "Privleged Fedi" and moving towards a consent-first model.

@onepict @jdp23 i opined something along these lines to some friends in private just yesterday: "the big lie of fedi is that it's possible or desirable to have a single network" -- mainly intended in a "cultural flattening" kind of way, because networks are built on shared agreements, and a single network implies global agreement on some baseline of communication. which is unsustainable, because inherently we need to allow for disagreements and negotiations to resolve conflicts.