Scholar Social meta 

So I really want to make scholar.social into less of a "benevolent dictatorship" and more into something ~democratic and ~community-supported

But I have a couple "nightmare scenarios" that I want to avoid:

Scholar Social meta 

Nightmare scenario 1:

We appoint a group of people to take leadership, and it's a bunch of rich straight tenured cis white dudes

Then Jordan Peterson or his ilk show up and they vote to change the Code of Conduct to allow him to use this instance to spew his hate-speech

And I die a little inside

Show thread

Scholar Social meta 

Nightmare scenario 2:

We appoint a group of people to take leadership, and they fumble the ball

Nobody pays the host; nobody does maintenance

The instance slowly gets buggier and unusable and dies

Show thread

Scholar Social meta 

@bgcarlisle I've been thinking about similar stuff for my instances

something I'm not entirely clear on is whether my users actually want this

it's not a given you know?

Follow

Scholar Social meta 

@bea I know right?

I was thinking: I could write it into the constitution or whatever of scholar.social that the leaders have to include at least 1 gay, 1 trans person, 1 person of colour, 1β€”

And then I'm like "Wait, am I actively making life harder for people who systematically have it harder than me by foisting more responsibilities on them?"

Β· Web Β· 0 Β· 0 Β· 0

Scholar Social meta 

@bgcarlisle yeah there's no easy answers I don't think. You can talk to your people and see how it looks I guess. I got offers to help and I got people concerned that they weren't really up to/for it. I just kinda mentioned it I didn't make a big thing of it so I didn't get as much feedback as I maybe could have, but it was about what I expected.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!