Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

Wondering what collaboration software might look like that encourages you to regularly take breaks and step away every once in a while

My view on the whole thing, based on the changes that have been occurring so far:

I think it's probably a good thing that Element is no longer the primary driver of governance in Matrix; that seems to be resolving a bunch of long-standing tensions.

On the other hand, it has indisputably left a governance vacuum. And I wish this would have been avoided when people warned for this earlier.

@vantablack They're not just shitty in the US either. They run a lot of the homeless shelters in the Netherlands, typically (partly) government-funded.

Back in 2013, I was part of a local Occupy camp, and we were wondering why there was a sudden spike in violence and other harassing behaviour in the camp at night.

Turns out the local Salvation Army maintains a no-entry list of "problematic" homeless folks, who were told (without us knowing about it!) that "you should go sleep in the camp instead".

Ah yes, pawn off people's drug abuse problems onto a bunch of penniless activists who are totally untrained for this, instead of doing your job and helping them. Fucking assholes.

This exact problem is also a big part of why I only view peaceful bridge building between different perspectives as a tool in the toolbox, and not as a universal solution; sometimes it cannot bridge this gap in lived experience, and the only remaining options are the ones where you put your foot down and draw a line.

One of the most frustrating things to deal with is people making assumptions about how (social/political) systems work, and the reality being so far off that you can't possibly correct them without sounding like you're making shit up.

Like this persistent idea that journalists are careful purveyors of the truth and facts, and then you have to explain to people that they also just copy-paste the government press releases without checking anything, that many journalists have genuinely never *considered* the possibility that these government sources may be lying, that they have full uncompromising faith in the government.

And if you tell people this, they're like "surely that can't be right, someone would have noticed", because the person you're talking to has a fundamental distrust of the government, but the journalist has a fundamental trust, and likely neither could even imagine the other party's perspective being real, because their lived experiences are so far apart.

And then you're left 'inbetween' them with your data and evidence, and it doesn't matter what the answer is, because at least one of them will disbelieve you no matter what conclusion you draw and no matter how much evidence you supply.