I can imagine that being extremely difficult, but I'm always a bit sad about hearing "this place doesn't work for us, so we will leave", because I feel like a community governed space is the only one that can ever have a realistic chance of one day working for everyone.
Commercially oriented entities imo will only ever have at best secondary interest in being safe and helpful to people and while they might in practice be fairly safe for some, they very much aren't for others.
I'm not threatening to leave, I'm telling you that I'm seeing Jews leave.
When I look at the number of Jews, both on Jewish instances and on general instances, that number is lower. This isn't "Jews may leave" but "Jews have left and here's why."
I think the idea of community run networks is complex, because if the operators of the networks have a bias, that bias will reflect on the network.
"I think the idea of community run networks is complex, because if the operators of the networks have a bias, that bias will reflect on the network"
Sure, but my point is that *every* network has biases and that the only credible approach to reducing bias will always be one of consensus and dialogue between a variety of actors. Which a decentralized network is well set up to do, even if it hasn't materialized in practice yet, while a centralized network fundamentally can't do that.
> reducing bias will always be one of consensus and dialogue between a variety of actors
Did you read my original post? We took many actions over a period of nearly two years.
What additional actions should we (the victims) be burdened with?
Well, did you read my posts? Because I wasn't making any demands on you, was I?
I'm just saying what systems I believe are structurally capable of creating a minimized-bias environment and what aren't. But what a system is capable of and what it looks like in its current form can be two different things. So I wasn't in any way trying to minimize your (collective) experience or saying that you specifically didn't try hard enough.