[email protected] for folks who want to go straight there.

[email protected]

The implication that the experiment cited was at all meant to backup the assertion that there exists a

phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications

is very clearly a mischaracterization. What I did was describe the content of the video in a comments section otherwise devoid of any evidence that anybody had watched the video. If you are interested in looking into the body of work that establishes the tendency of men to talk over others, I have found the full-text of the fairly foundational metastudy “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research”. It’s notable that most of the research on this topic leading up to the present day has been framed as answering the age-old question “Do women talk more?”.

attributes a lot of reasons for why the men did this

Those are not reasons in so far as they are meant to explain the men’s motivations but rather the methods by which they wrestle and maintain control of the discourse. It’s important to understand that this is written largely to bring them to the attention of the folks that are actively marginalized by these activities, so that they may counter and dismantle these systems.

Nope. There be trolls over there.

The video spends a long time on the phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications. It cites one experiment wherein 16 women and 9 men had an introductory conversation on the issue. During this conversation there were 6 active speakers. 4 men speaking for a total of 9 minutes and 2 women who spoke for a total of 1 minute. These tendencies are mostly due to individuals desires to claim leadership of a group but absolutely leave us “paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes”. If you are interested in watching any portion of the video, you can skip to the part that I mentioned by going here.

The paper that the video cites: https://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2017/4/article/taking-space-men-masculinity-and-student-climate-movement

Petromasculinity is a well documented phenomena and when paired with the male tendency to dominate discussions and consolidate power in hierarchies (both are covered in the video in the form of studies wherein climate oriented groups are completely derailed by their male participants apparent need to talk the most and shut down group based discussion) we see a problem that is salient and familiar but applied to a crisis where the stakes could not be higher. For the men in this thread who are unwilling to even WATCH the video let alone consider the merits of its arguments, it is very likely that you are actively the problem, because the same tendencies that inspire that action are also used to silence voices that can be instrumental in actual change.

That’s why I’m specifically suggesting we try to get them on the specialized instances. Where culture and moderation policies are least similar from Reddit. Somebody else pointed this out in the other thread and I do absolutely think if we don’t point them to a specialized instances then beehaw is the place to go.

I’m not sure there’s really anything wrong with what’s going on now but it does seem that new users from Reddit in particular have all but dried up. Long term this will definitely be a problem. Mastodon provides a userbase in the low millions to potentially tap into and they already understand federation. Strikes me as low hanging fruit that has a lot more value than the average reddit user.

One big issue with the existing cross-posting feature is that it does not work AT ALL with text based posts, just links.

Some of this may also have to do with the user creation exploit that popped up a while back.

I don’t think the folks that have those sorts of qualms are necessarily the people to go after. I think the prime targets should be field experts. They were essential in establishing Reddit’s utility in the early days and there seem to be a fairly significant number of them over on Mastodon in search of deeper conversation.

Some easily shared graphics would still be super useful.

I really think medium broad-topic instances are the way to go. Similar in scope to lemmy.film or lemdro.id

See this thread: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/2196821

My thesis is basically that new users are not coming from Reddit anymore, but Mastodon users are both searching for group-like features and are likely to be positive influences over here. I’m saying they can be particularly useful in bootstrapping specialized instances (lemmy.film, literature.cafe, etc) and establishing a culture that differs from the wider threadiverse with fairly minimal advertising over on Mastodon. For the most part, if you are not already a Mastodon user or a community/instance mod you do not need to worry about this.

Do you think there would be similar frustration points in the Mastodon to Lemmy process? Obviously, I am ok with both so this may be a major blindspot of mine, but I suspect that may be a slightly easier transition.

Also those aren’t weird names for tags they are more like existing communities. Because Mastodon does not have native groups there are several implementations like https://a.gup.pe to fill the gap. Following tags like that is a similar way to go about it. They are distinct from #books or #horror. #monsterdon in particular is a weekly monster movie watch party. The point is that these are active communities with a lot of crossover potential.

I’m saying you wouldn’t see racist bullshit and spam in !fediverse@whatever.

I think this has interesting but overall very positive implications for the local feed.

That’s not actually how defederation works. You would still not be able to see those your instance has defederated from.

That and the sorting at this time really doesn’t allow for niche communities to grow.