I think that as has already been clarified in the comments I would have put Listen to them and think before posting, but not necessarily publish less... At least not like that because it is more a consequence of Listening/Thinking.
I also noticed that unconsciously I published less here but without interacting and recommending relevant content. Because in open source I often take the postulate that if something is already relevant, repeating it will not change it and on the contrary can drown the first information in the rest of the timeline unless we re-share.
I don't know if it's relevant to put it back here but while passing through Mastodon I came across this article which I read carefully and really appreciated. I wrote a thought about this on another Lemmy post: https://jlai.lu/comment/18987965
To summarize, there are clearly efforts to be made and I completely understand that despite the existing tools this could be considered insufficient, especially when certain choices of the Mastodon foundation could be identified as problematic (I saw a publication on Thanksgiving T-Shirts and it's pretty average), but it is more a structural and symptomatic problem of our society rather than just the Fediverse which still seeks to be better.
It's a bit like representative democracy which we compare to the least worst solution compared to authoritarian regimes for example, but the difference is that we can improve as for democracy which can be direct. Through our society, many of us have unconscious habits or reflexes to deconstruct, whether for our own social struggles or for those of minorities whose constant problem is the underrepresentation of the fact that their experiences are therefore factually less represented.
One of the advantages and disadvantages is moderation on a human scale faced with a massive influx of users, but allowing the base to be able to offer scalable moderation according to user expectations and new threats.
