Thanks very much for the feedback, I really appreciate the time you put into it and. you bring up a lot of very good points. For "start making" vs "making" and "less toxic" vs "more welcoming", I'm intentionally choosing the weaker forms to emphasize that these are only the very first steps. I know it's a harder sell this way but it's important to set expectations. It's a good point about how some allies saying :"listen to me!" take space from marginalized groups, I kind of feel like I've got that covered by betweent the combination of #1 and #2 but maybe it's worth making more explicit.

Agreed that the discussion of repeated questions could be more explicit. (It's not necessarily sealioning, although sometimes it is; often it's the same one or two reasonable questions from a huge number of people.). But that's not actually the key point I'm trying to make. Instead, to relates to this:

the way that this point is currently worded, it sounds fallacious (inversion of the burden of the proof)

Many people react that way but think about it a little more. It's a fact. Mutliuple Black people have proven it repeatedly. There is no further burden of proof, it's only whiteness' denial that makes it seem like an open question and entitlement that makes it seem like Black people should produce more evidence. The annoyance factor is a big deal too, but it's secondary.

And, good catch on the typo, thanks!

Thanks very much for wading in, @alyaza@beehaw.org - and thanks again to all the mods for taking action here. Any thread about racism in the fediverse becomes evidence of racism in the fediverse, sigh.

More positively, though, I got some very helpful feedback here from @Kwakigra@beehaw.org, @SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org and @kalanggam@beehaw.org ... which is appreciated, and testimony to the fact that clearly a lot of people on Beehaw do get it!

Thanks very much for wading in!

Good feedback, thanks much. I did check with Black people about directing folks to #BlackMastodon and the @ blackfedi group -- but I should probably be more explicit about not posting their, and your general point about not barging into spaces where you're not invited is importat and something I should highlight. I'll add something to the "and tht's not all" section about working on your biases and behaviors more generally. And also good point about stressing the intersectional aspects more. Greatly appreciated!

Thanks much, I very much appreciate the supportive words! And, great analysis, thanks for that as well. Although, if you think things are bad here you should see the lemmy.world thread, where it's down to -47. And just imagine how much worse it would be if I were Black!

These things are basic, but most white people aren't doing them -- even people who think of themselves as staunchly pro Black. And there are multiple examples in the article of how white people might be impacting Black people unintentionally, for example thisiswomanswerk talks about how hand-wringing messages of symptay many times are themselves microaggresive, and suggestions like "Stop asking Black people for evidence of the anti-Blackness" and "Stop telling Black people that they'll experience less racism if they change instances (aka servers)"

No, "color blindness" perpetuates structural racism. Here's one study looking at that. Seeing Race Again Countering Colorblindness across the Disciplines has a lot more, although it's focused on law and academia.

Yeah, the section on "Listen more to Black people" didn't really cover the challenges on Lemmy. I added this:

If you're on a platform like Lemmy which doesn't yet have similar hubs, it's more challenging. One option is to use other social networks, news aggregators, and search engines to find articles, papers, and videos by Black people – and post them yourself to help others listen.

How's that?

Thanks, all good points, I'll try to work them in! The boosting is somewhat tricky, the general guideline is "boost posts tht people want boosted, don't boost posts that they don't want boosted", but it's not always clear which is which (unless they. have "Please boost" in there somewhere)

And, it gives cops another excuse to overpolice Black and brown neighborhoods.

You do realize that instances federating with Threads will share data with Threads, and that Meta's supplemental privacy policy specifically says that they'll use all activity that federates to meta for tracking and ad targeting, right?

So for example, if you're on an instance that federates with Threads, and somebody on Threads is following you, all of your posts -- including your followers-only posts -- will get tracked by Meta. Or if somebody who boosts your post and they've got followers on Threads, your post will be tracked by Meta. Or if you like, boost, or reply to a post that originated on Threads, it gets tracked my Meta. And these are just the most obvious cases. What about if somebody on an instance that's not Threads replies to a Threads post, and you reply to the reply? It depends on the how the various software implements replies -- ActivityPub allows different possibilities here. And there are plenty of other potential data flows to Meta as well.

Of course they're still just at the early stages of federation so it's hard to know just how it'll work out. Individually blocking Threads might well provide a lot of protection. But in general, instances which federate with Meta will almost certainly be tracked significantly more than instances that don't.

Today almost no instances run ads (misskey is as far as I know the only platform that's got support for ads) and Threads is the only one that does tracking. I'm using "free fediverses" the way https://freefediverse.org/index.php/Main_Page does -- instances that reject federation with Meta.