LB: the whole point is NOT that people literally want to be unaware of what's going on in the world / politics.
but when you are feeling depressed, overwhelmed, and out of control because you're so afraid and sad about the world, it's nice to have a place you can go to chill out and take your mind off it, that doesn't throw all those things in your face every 5 seconds. Hence the content warning insistence.
IT'S EASY FOR YOU (one click), and can be invaluable to somebody else's mental health
@tcql
So I created a Mastodon instance using a party affiliated domain name (albeit as critique, but still). I was hoping political discourse would be a part of my little community. I even called it out in the Code of Conduct.
I'm not abjectly opposed to it, I'm just not sure I 100% agree with it either.
By your guideline every comment on my community would be wrapped in a Content Warning--timelines and conversations would not be usable.
That wouldn't really work very well.
@Motoma yea, don't really know what to say to that. Having a space to talk politics is entirely legitimate of course.
I want to say, "that's the point of federation" - instances that are geared more toward safer discussion could block your instance from their federated timelines... but that does feel heavy handed especially when most people view the politics CW as a politeness, not a blockable offense.
Maybe a less heavy-handed solution would be to allow topical instances to flag themselves as such (think NSFW, political, or victim support communtiites). Other instances could then choose whether to CW a specific class of content automatically when it gets pulled into the federated timeline.
@tcql @r4v5 I wonder if @CitySquirrel would like to weigh in on this topic.
@tcql I understand the desire to shield others from topics that can be uncomfortable, stressful, or overwhelming. But for a community like the one I was hoping to grow, this seems like an untenable obstacle.