Twitter and its descendants are much more about building a personal brand. This place is more like the old internet where no one felt comfortable doxing themselves. Hopefully, our ways rub off on the newbies a bit. Opsec is going to be especially important in the coming fash wave.

NSFW:

this is gonna sound gross for a second, but imagine hexbear was Reddit.

True dat. If you're not sure what someone means you can usually ask them to clarify. There are layers and layers and layers of in-jokes and weird site culture things.

this is something about site culture that might end up changing in the future in an effort to be more accommodating to ND users tbh. For now, new users should know that if you ask "is this a bit?" it is generally honored here that you'll be answered truthfully first (and maybe jokingly after someone clears it up).

30k

We are sooooo much cooler and more fun than a Twitter clone. There is genuine community to be found here that kinda give the old web 1.0 bulletin board forum feel. There's a lot of posters but not so many you won't start to get to know recurring names and kinda some of who they are through their posts over time. It's less of a reddit or Twitter kinda scroll madness algorithmically designed to keep you there with millions of random posters you'll never see or hear from again. We have really got something special going on here compared to the rest of the post social media internet. If I found out a poster here lived near me irl I'd help them move if they were moving. It's really nice here and I hope you think so too.

Given how frequently the jonkler is posted and it's got its own ream of emojis i think it'd be a cultural shift to get people to consistently cw for clowns

When it comes to content warnings I try to be specific about the content and to give a estimation of how in depth the content is because I think it's helpful for people to make an informed decision. I also try to remember to bold my content warnings and to put them on a separate line, often I will put them halfway into a comment right before the CW content appears as that way a person can still read part of a response while choosing to skip over a detailed example that may be triggering.

I'm going to give some examples of what I think are better and worse content warnings to illustrate my point in quoted comments:

CW: violence
I disagree with your point because sometimes violence is necessary to defend yourself from harm. For example, take a child who fights back against their abuser...

So in this one the CW isn't as visually distinct so it's easier to skip over if you're skimming and it also excludes a person from reading a response before the potentially triggering content. Also "violence" isn't really descriptive - is it shouting? Is it a gunshot? Is it something really gruelling like you'd expect from a gory horror movie? This makes informed consent much trickier and it unintentionally excludes people.

Another example:

I don't agree with the absolute pacifist position like you've described. I think that justice is something that needs to be defended, with violence if necessary [note here that just mentioning violence in the abstract isn't a problem imo because what are you going to do - say CW: violence before you mention the concept of violence?]. As MLK put it, the absence of the absence of tension vs. a positive peace, which requires the presence of justice, is an important distinction to make.

[CW: Brief discussion of child abuse and neglect in the abstract]

For example, only the most rabidly dogmatic pacifist would denounce a victim of child abuse for resorting to an act of violence to defend themselves unless it was wildly incommensurate with the threat or perceived threat that they were defending themselves against. Maybe they would take a different position for a child that is being subjected to serious neglect like a child who is being denied meals but I'm uncertain tbh.

In this example, if a person decides to skip the comment because of the content warning they can still participate in the discussion to a large extent, even if they opt out of the last part so it's less exclusionary by its structure.

The content warning is also visually distinct and it's descriptive - it provides a good example of what to expect in the next part and who the language will be addressing. If it wasn't an abstract discussion I might say something like "Detailed personal experience of psychological abuse as a child who went through it" or "Description of fictional animal abuse in a film" because these can be very different experiences for someone to read about and they can have very different impacts.

When it comes to really intense stuff often I'll just put a CW at the top saying something like "Really in-depth discussions of transphobia, SH, suicide - if this stuff can be too much for you just skip the comment because you won't get anything out positive of reading this comment." such as in a case where maybe I'm really getting into the weeds and educating someone on a topic and encouraging them to shift their opinions. Or I might say "Blanket CW for very detail discussion of most/all forms of child abuse" rather than attempting to make a laundry list of each type of abuse. That sort of thing.

Anyway I'm not saying that this is how everyone must do their CWs but I feel like this is a good way to go about doing better, more helpful CWs.

also a big account promoted us to their followers so thats another reason for the wave of users

Tldr: they failed to ban some fascist releasing screenshots of someones medical records which goes against bluesky ToS (ulness you are a fascist, then you can to do whatever you want apparently)

Some power poster or something over there linked to us for all the people there who are mad that twitter 2 is also letting transphobes do transphobia