@joepie91 OK, I don't get what this implies, could you please ellaborate?

@xerz So one of the important things about fedi (and many other grassroots projects where marginalized folks are prioritized) is that it *isn't* centrally governed; it prevents the situation where a bunch of privileged dudes make ignorant decisions that will hurt other people, for example.

Instead, governance on fedi is decentralized; different instances have different rules, different ways they interact with other instances, different approaches to moderation, and so on. This makes it much less likely for people to 'fall between the cracks', because there's probably gonna be an instance or group that caters to their needs.

But FediForum, like a bunch of other things before it, tried to make itself sound official; like it was *the* place where the future of fedi would be decided. They were trying to centralize governance into a single place, run by - predictably - privileged tech dudes, and without any consideration for the needs of marginalized folks.

That is essentially just a disguised attempt at taking over the fediverse, trying to gain control over it. And it shows that their goal in "preventing takeover" isn't to ensure the health of the fediverse, but to eliminate the competition in "who gets to call the shots".

(A previous example of such an attempt would be the UFoI, which tried to present itself as a UN-like organization whose goal was ultimately just to stop other instances from defederating from a known-problematic instance, but disguised behind a bunch of pretentious "democratic governance" crap)