I’m inclined to agree with most of this, and while I feel like parts of this have been poorly communicated and executed, I do feel like most folks care and want the community to flourish. We’re all just people, and sometimes we communicate ineffectively, but like you, I hope all this energy goes toward creating and growing, and making a positive change.

As far as moderation goes, nothing is changing.

How are we supposed to square this with the rationale for the break being to get away from stricter moderating?

When it comes to moderating, we want to cultivate an environment where queer people feel welcome, but the point where we differ from Ada is not being allowed to respectfully disagree. As far as we’re concerned, that person didn’t break any of our rules.

My concern at this point hinges on what constitutes “respect” and what things are tolerable to disagree about. Particularly with the backdrop of a society that sees disagreeing with my gender as respectful disagreement.

Don’t get me wrong, we’re not gonna start tolerating MAGA shit or anything, we just don’t want people to be afraid of getting ejected from the community over a relatively mild take or for committing wrongthink.

That really becomes a question of how far is too far, while everyone is subjected to potentially harmful takes because they’re not overtly hateful. That’s the thing that burned a lot of us out on Reddit.

That still doesn’t really tell me anything. What kinds of differences of opinions? What kinds of things have resulted in admin action that the mods would be more lenient on?

The primary difference is moderatorial and ideologial differences

Such as?

Years back, when I was working helpdesk and was on overtime, I traveled to visit my long-distance girlfriend. The first night, I was so tired that I quickly fell asleep. Apparently, in my sleep, I kept asking her for her username so that I could log the ticket.

While these laws are expressly exclusionary, the overall intent is to erode civil rights protections. It’s easier for them to argue against civil rights when they can present a legal justification for it.

Mozart invents headbanging.

As a trans person, I can tell you that it’s generally pretty huge to see it in the mission statement, but followthrough and clearly outlined internal policy is priceless.

I opened this post knowing 100% that I’d find this comment.

If that’s what installing Linux is like I don’t want to know what installing Windows looks like.

The buttplug is massive and entirely unlubricated.

Oh, look, it’s a crybaby bitch!

Bring back Clippy. Clippy wouldn’t do warcrimes.

To hire diversely, they need to gather statistics to quantify, at which point they have ready-made marketing for hiring.

Ultimately, I feel like people take a singlular moment view of guns for self-defense as well, without considering how the apparatus of the state will react. It doesn’t matter if I can defend myself in the moment if the state is going to try to lock me up for it.

Headline should just be “Boise State values discrimination more than the hard work of their athletes”.

I love Flean and Foidobs!

So the question is, how can sites like Onlyfans improve to better prevent exploitation while providing sex workers a platform?

I used to try to make it as awkward as possible. Condoms, lube, a bottle of wine, and whatever phallic fruit I could find.

Enough people caring about us doesn’t matter anymore if they don’t vote to protect our rights.

They care at an abstract human level but give them the flimsiest excuse, and they’re more than happy to throw us under the bus and side with/engage in the most virulent transphobia.