@jdp23 @dynamic

replying to this to challenge a few framings :—

• most of the big instances are run by cis white men because running a big instance is inherently contradictory to building community, which people who aren’t cis white men have a lot more interest in. so i’m not sure this observation is saying exactly what you think it is. in contrast, i think many of the most culturally‐significant and cherished communities on mastodon have been run by people who do not fit that mould. i would not be at all surprised if MOST mastodon administrators (in general) were not cis white men, even if most of the mastodon administrators of large instances are, and that says something important, i think.

• the above ties into remarks about “power structure” too. how much power do the few administrators of the few large instances actually have, especially when many admins have now silenced or blocked those instances due to poor moderation? i think they definitely have power over mastodon DEVELOPMENT, but setting that aside for a bit, i think there are cultural forces on mastodon which have a great deal more influence than what e·g Eugen says or thinks. especially considering his remarks are now almost universally derided…

• « How many trans and non-binary people from the fediverse have been in the discussions with Meta, either the NDA meetings with admins or on the SWICG call and email discussions? » i think this is a good point but i want to note that this animosity goes both ways. Meta, W3C, and large instances don’t operate in the same universe as a lot of smaller fedi instances and NEITHER group really considers it strategic to go inhabit the other’s space. one of those spaces is just big, and obvious, and formal, and easy to cover from a press standpoint, and the other is practically invisible unless you know where to look. i think it’s very important not to confuse how things look to a corporation, or government, or press outlet, to how things actually are on the ground. so i ask: why are the discussions with Meta / SWICG the privileged spaces in this conversation? from my standpoint, it’s the informal networks between instance admins which are privileged, and it’s Meta / the SWICG who were not invited to participate.

i’m not talking about race in the above points but i’m also not not talking about race. mastodon has had its fair share of wal·marts in the past and it’s also had one or a few actual independent Black‐owned businesses. you can inquire about the supermarket leadership all you like, or whether we should be allowing this supermarket or that one to set up shop in city limits, but in all those conversations you are going to miss out on the people who are the actual lifeblood of the local community, who are not and will never be involved in those conversations, because they have much more pressing and immediate responsibilities.

final point: i want to challenge the idea that activity on a platform is always a measure of success. in my opinion, the fact that people are forced to live their lives on facebook is one of its failures. and i know for a fact that this hits marginalized populations, for example, who do organizing through Facebook Groups. there are people there who in an ideal world would not be on any platform, who have no need for the platform itself but are forced for one reason or another to participate. those people will never be on mastodon, because mastodon does not force anyone to participate. it is very important to bear this in mind when thinking about demographics and why they might or might not be present here.