What's the evidence you find "literally incontrovertible"?

The comparison is apt though:

• In 2020, almost all non-partisan voting rights organizations and election experts (as well as most Republicans, despite losing) were saying that there was in fact no evidence of widespread election fraud. So conservatives claiming election fraud were seen as conspiracy theorists who were spreading disinfo (either intentionally or because they really thought there was evidence).

• In 2024, almost all non-partisan voting rights organizations and election experts (as well as most Democrats, despite losing) are saying that there was in fact no evidence of widespread election fraud. So ...

Sure, if it's somebody you know or trust who's saying this, then it's not disinformation; agreed about helping them contact election officials and/or other authorities, and if you think it's useful to amplify it, then I'm not trying to talk you out of it.

If it's not somebody you know or trust, then amplifying it is quite possibly helping out a disinformation campaign.

And in any case, amplifying individual claims is very different from the unsupported claims about "millions of missing votes", and that's what I am trying to talk people out of.

Dorsey's not involved in Bluesky any more but I agree that there are lots of reasons not to trust them (including Dorsey's original involvement).

Bluesky's currently a much better Twitter alternative than Mastodon but I totally agree, there's a lot more to social networking than that. I talk about ways I see Bulesky as complementary to the ActivityPub section in the last section, "It's the end of the Fediverse as we know it – and I feel fine"

Yeah, Mastodon's interface has a lot of complexities. It drives me crazy when people say "just like email" ... here's the most recent diagram of what posts are visible in your federated timeline.

Thanks very much for the feedback, I really appreciate the time you put into it and. you bring up a lot of very good points. For "start making" vs "making" and "less toxic" vs "more welcoming", I'm intentionally choosing the weaker forms to emphasize that these are only the very first steps. I know it's a harder sell this way but it's important to set expectations. It's a good point about how some allies saying :"listen to me!" take space from marginalized groups, I kind of feel like I've got that covered by betweent the combination of #1 and #2 but maybe it's worth making more explicit.

Agreed that the discussion of repeated questions could be more explicit. (It's not necessarily sealioning, although sometimes it is; often it's the same one or two reasonable questions from a huge number of people.). But that's not actually the key point I'm trying to make. Instead, to relates to this:

the way that this point is currently worded, it sounds fallacious (inversion of the burden of the proof)

Many people react that way but think about it a little more. It's a fact. Mutliuple Black people have proven it repeatedly. There is no further burden of proof, it's only whiteness' denial that makes it seem like an open question and entitlement that makes it seem like Black people should produce more evidence. The annoyance factor is a big deal too, but it's secondary.

And, good catch on the typo, thanks!

Well said. Can I quote you in the revised draft?

Yep. It probably accentuates Reply Guy-ism too. The underlying issues are social; technology can make things worse. This article focuses on the social aspects but I talked about some of AP's issues in the "And it's about the protocol too" section of Steps towards a Safer Fediverse

Good feedback, thanks much. I did check with Black people about directing folks to #BlackMastodon and the @ blackfedi group -- but I should probably be more explicit about not posting their, and your general point about not barging into spaces where you're not invited is importat and something I should highlight. I'll add something to the "and tht's not all" section about working on your biases and behaviors more generally. And also good point about stressing the intersectional aspects more. Greatly appreciated!

Thanks. The article discusses this some, including

If you're white, you're almost certainly not an expert on anti-Blackness – on the fediverse or more generally. This means that your initial thoughts and questions on this subject are almost certainly going to be things many others have said before. So even if they're good questions or ideas, they're not particularly helpful and (since many Black people hear the same thing again and again) may well be annoying. And very often they're not particularly good questions or ideas – or you'll express them in a way that contributes to the fediverse's anti-Blackness.

And then has several examples. That said, improvement is needed -- the text of the section doesn't completely align with the headline -- so suggestions welcome!

I can't speak for others but yes, I want a fediverse that doesn't have white supremacists and fascists.

You do realize that instances federating with Threads will share data with Threads, and that Meta's supplemental privacy policy specifically says that they'll use all activity that federates to meta for tracking and ad targeting, right?

So for example, if you're on an instance that federates with Threads, and somebody on Threads is following you, all of your posts -- including your followers-only posts -- will get tracked by Meta. Or if somebody who boosts your post and they've got followers on Threads, your post will be tracked by Meta. Or if you like, boost, or reply to a post that originated on Threads, it gets tracked my Meta. And these are just the most obvious cases. What about if somebody on an instance that's not Threads replies to a Threads post, and you reply to the reply? It depends on the how the various software implements replies -- ActivityPub allows different possibilities here. And there are plenty of other potential data flows to Meta as well.

Of course they're still just at the early stages of federation so it's hard to know just how it'll work out. Individually blocking Threads might well provide a lot of protection. But in general, instances which federate with Meta will almost certainly be tracked significantly more than instances that don't.

On Lemmy? Certainly not. But on other fediverse software, there are followers-only posts, direct messages, local-only posts ... none of it's encrypted, but still it's not public.