NO GUILT-TRIPPING. Everyone hates it. Psychologically people sustain motivation better using pleasure rather than avoiding pain. This means using "we" and non-judgmental language when we talk about the 'bad stuff'.

• Yes, Meta is funding authoritarianism, Discord is in bed with human rights violators; the focus needs to be on what we're all gonna do about it. It's gotta be: "we're not okay with this! here's what we're gonna do together and you're welcome to join us" and NOT "you're a bad person for doing this and you should stop."
• This also avoids the stereotyped misconception that everyone who can do complex 'computer stuff' thinks they're better than everyone who can't. Basically, don't talk down to people, invite them as equals in solidarity

This, 100%. And the rest is more than worth reading, too.

I can't understand how difficult it seems to understand something that obvious for way too many of us 'in the Free/Libre community': no one like being called names or being publicly shamed. That is not how we can hope to attract new users or members. Imho, it tells more about ourselves when we keep on making other feel bad, belittling them, instead of encouraging them.

What's missing in this excellent summary is a note about the importance of tolerating diverging opinions. Learning to be ok with not everyone sharing our opinions. When I arrived around here, my first account was on Lemmy, I was really worried by the sheer amount of hate going on towards anyone or any group that dared not be ‘like us’, not think ‘like us’, not share ‘our values’. I was and still am shocked to see how natural it seems to ask for people to banned on a mere divergence of opinions. The simplest solution, the only solution in most cases, should be to block said person when we really can’t stand them (I often do that, it’s working well) because… how do we hope to grow the community if all we can listen to, if the only persons we accept to share the room with needs to be... clones of ourselves?

And how fragile must be our own convictions if we need them to be so badly over-protected even against words?

Nice find, i'm saving that for futur communication creation (flyers, posters...) in the fedihacks.

For me, there are things where we should not ask questions. For example, in the case of Meta : Authoritarian promotion, Meymar genocide, IVG censorship, moderation moved to Texas...

The list is long and hardly convaince people. But when i tell them, miror what happened there and there IRL, they no longer dissociate computer stuff from their real life. And i also give them what we can do, how to mitigate it because instilling fear isn't the way. We have plenty solutions ready.

I notice that we want to hide thing from our inner circle. But for thing abstract as Meta, even myself, we would still give their phone number thus giving a way to identifiate us and put us in danger.

Thank you for sharing