Okay, replying now to what you actually meant (my other comment assumed that you were saying that Gleam advocates for tolerance, I didn't realize it was a refer

Okay, replying now to what you actually meant (my other comment assumed that you were saying that Gleam advocates for tolerance, I didn't realize it was a reference to the quote): I said nothing about quiescence. I said nothing against taking a stand. My opposition is to the idea that the way forward for conflict management is to purge it and pretend it isn't happening. That's what happened in the case I linked to—a member of the community expressed disapproval of admin actions and had their disapproval removed by the moderator and received a rather passive aggressive response in a DM. That's an inappropriate way to moderate that does not lead to healthy conflict management. Taking a stand would be publicly engaging with the criticism, not purging it and engaging with the critic in a private message. I'm much less concerned about the US-politics-centric commentary on the main page (though there are problems with that, like making people not in the US feel excluded) than I am with a broader trend in many open source projects (this one being one of several I've seen) of "protecting" their community from anything that remotely resembles toxicity, even when those things are well meaning criticism of the way that things are being run. And no, I wouldn't say that anything is purely technical—but some things are political in service to the technical, and other things are political first. Gleam strikes me as a project that is firmly political first, based on the lead dev's actions and the community's discussion (this article literally places the project's political stance as "first and foremost"!). As I say, that's not a bad thing, but I'm skeptical that it will work out in the long run on a technical level to prioritize the politics over all else, especially when the approach to politics is one that shuts down conflict rather than cultivating and curating it.