This is not a comparison between Tildes and Beehaw. The question really is what constitutes a safe space, but looking at them side by side was at made me think about this issue. I’m new in both communities and I’m aware that they are in a state of adaptation with all the newcomers, something to keep in mind. Another detail to be considered is that the space I talk about is the limitations (rules and guidelines) in which the community can exist to create their own culture.
Firstly, Tildes is not a safe space and doesn’t intend to be. It’s far from being a free for all with rampant toxicity either. You go there if you want to have healthy discussions with people that know better than to cross the line when expressing themselves. That line, though, is more defined by practical consequences. You derail the conversation into something that goes in the direction of nasty and it will be cut down.
At Beehaw, I see a desire to avoid unnecessary grief. A user might have a bad day and say something in a way that rubs others the wrong way, but that will not be the norm and I imagine it’s expected that people will take notice when called out.
Both places incentive productive discussions, but Beehaw puts its users well being above all else. I believe there’s a gap between the two that can’t be filled by anything else. I think this gap is what is necessary to create a safe space. No fuzzy line that can easily be crossed, but a ditch.
With all that said, in a somewhat obvious way, I see safe spaces defined by how you make the people inside it feel. Basically, safe to exist and safe to engage. A space in which you don’t have to fear being hurt, even if that’s an impossible guarantee. In a safe space, if things go bad, there will be plenty that have your back.
Hostile spaces, on the other hand, are marked by the lack of care for safety. The world is a dangerous place and you should just deal with it or stay locked at home.
That’s probably enough from me. What are your thoughts? What do you look for in a safe space for discussions? And how do you know if you are in the right place?
You must log in or register to comment.
If you’re looking for another pretty chill space, squabbles.io has been pretty decent so far.
Beehaw is cool. There’s good discussions about things.
I am, however, personally opposed to the whole safe space trend. I do not care if some place is a ‘safe space’, and I’ll play by the rules a place has. But some little part in me finds all these ‘don’t do x, don’t be y, don’t think of z’ rules very off putting. I wasn’t planning on doing any of these things, but the fact that these things get pushed to the forefront when you’re registering or reading the rules of a place so much - it just rubs me the wrong way.
OK. I hear you, but I want to understand better before I make any argument. Why do you personally think safe spaces are unnecessary? As I said before, the space I talk about are the rules. Do you apply the same sentiment to the world in general, as in rules are not necessary?
There’s two kinds of rules in my opinion. On one hand you have the rules that are just understood, without having to be talked about. On the other hand you have rules that you just tell everybody, and with that you show people rules that they really should care about. The problem here is, if you explicitly State rules to people, then you partly seem to expect people to break these rules.
If you take a look at sites like 4chan, you can see that even without any rules whatsoever, there still is at least some level of decency with most interactions. Of course there’s a lot of Filth and really non-decent Behavior going on on 4chan, but that is not the point.
I myself am a believer in humans generally being decent. I don’t mind people being banned for going against the sites ‘community code’ - and it’s good that it’s laid out clear. The way that this rubs me the wrong way is that rules that are front and center, shoved in your face, can kind of act like ‘gatekeeping’.
The rules for beehaw are actually well-stated, in a way that shows what they want to go for. But for example a standard top level rule on mastodon instances is ‘No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or casteism.’
Sure, the intention behind it is fine. I know where they want to get at. But these words are, currently, all very charged. Does a guy saying ‘I do not like having that many foreigners in my neighbourhood’ constitute xenophobia? You don’t have context - maybe the neighbourhood the person lived in has a lot of people living there that all speak a different language - so the person feels ‘left out’ of the community. That has nothing to do with the fact that they are foreign people - just with the fact its a foreign language. What about stating criticism on your countries’ immigration politics? At what point, exactly, does this go from ‘civilised discussion’ to ‘xenophobia’?
I’m going with xenophobia as the example as I think it’s the most easily illustrated here, but this goes for all rules.
I have to say, the first time I read those rules on my mastodon instance, I was put off. The mere presence of that rule kind of indicated to me that this was made for a specific group of people, that I do not really belong to - judging from past experiences. This turned out not to be the case, and I like interacting with people on mastodon.
I would just like to have people assume other people to be decent beings. It is good to have rules written down, to accurately pass judgement on whether something is allowed or not allowed - but shoving them into people’s faces when they join might put people off.
Tldr: it’s less about having rules, it’s about stating rules in a way that they’re clear, not open to interpretation, and that the rules are relatively ‘clear’ of ideology - so that the place the rule applies to is welcoming.
You derail the conversation into something that goes in the direction of nasty and it will be cut down.
My experience on Tildes was more that you risk being cut down based almost entirely on who marks something as malice or whether a thread you create causes too many people to engage in marking each others comments as malice.
There’s a specific kind of toxic rationalism (primarily centered through a lens of privilege) which is present on that website, which has been pushing the minority voice off the website for some time. I speak from experience; I joined Tildes back when it started and used to participate a whole lot more. I was told in no uncertain terms by the creator of the website that I was not allowed to start meta-discussions about the community and problematic behavior that I saw that was pushing the minority voice off the website.
In a safe space, if things go bad, there will be plenty that have your back.
I really like this framing, thank you for sharing it. I think it captures a lot of what we were trying to say with our last philosophy post 💜
I look for good moderation with a general theme of “don’t be a dick”. Being a dick is intentional, not accidental. People can be heated and passionate and contrary, but that doesn’t mean you have to choose to be a dick about it.
When someone is being a dick in an online space where there are more tools available than in real life, I want that moderation to keep things from getting out of hand via official functions from those in authority roles (warnings, temp bans) or community soft power (user intercession, social pressure).
Like some, I’m not thrilled with how prominent it feels the enforcement of rules is presented almost as a theme at either beehaw or tildes, but generally I’ll accept enthusiastic enforcing of civil behavior over a free-for-all. It’s easier - and less damaging to a community - to start with restrictions then loosen them over time as those social pressures help keep things on track and less official intervention is required.
It helps that both tildes and beehaw have stated pretty expectations pretty clearly which should help with both user and admin experiences overall - mostly. Most people are okay with rules they acknowledge and accept as long as they are enforced as expected.
The only trap that can happen with rule enforcement being prominent - and it happens in all sorts of community spaces - is if the rules become the central factor of the community. I think that’s what ends up creating the feeling of elitism and frustration with participation in the community when how well someone is following the rules becomes an idealism. That can push people away because the “safe space” becomes a special club which you can’t belong if you don’t follow the letter of the law even if you follow the spirit of it. A good fediverse example recently is the alt-text wrist slapping on Mastodon with some folks pushing it as a tenant for “good” Mastodon users to adhere.
Either way, the fact there are so many more active options these days - with some helpful inertia from twitter and reddit kerfuffles - means folks should be able to find spaces they’re happy to hang out in and can avoid dicks. And there’s always the option to not participate at all. :)
All I look for Is a willingness to speak to others in good faith and for there to be a referee intervention when that isn’t respected. “Safe space” has been so twisted and ridiculed that it’s hard to use it and not feel some of the inflection of entitlement that’s been imparted to it. Safe for me is an end to needless hostility in conversation and being able to talk without someone else launching a curio cabinet of their favorite ad hominems at you. So far I’ve found beehaw to be a bit more in line with this than tildes, but both communities have a lot of room left to establish what they want to be.
How can someone ridicule the idea of safe spaces? That’s what we all want. And it’s not just an idea, it’s a reality. Our houses are the ultimate safe spaces. As a teacher, I bet anyone would stop going to a class if the best teacher of the world called you a dumbass for every single mistake that you made.
We all expect or wish to be safe in our everyday lives. The ones that specifically look for safe spaces are the people that are not safe.
Agreed, in my opinion asking for safe spaces is not entitlement. It’s people who feel most comfortable (safe) with the status quo, who think others are entitled for also wanting to feel safe.
