On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 8:45 AM Paul M. Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > > On May 1, 2026, at 05:27, Alex Pierstoval Rock <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Jim & all, > >> > >> Currently, the RFC states: > >> > >>> due to to the current nature of the site, there is no reason for the > project to have a presence there > >> > >> This is unclear -- what exactly about "the current nature of the site" > leads to there being "no reason for the project to have a presence there" ? > Can you articulate the specifics, for the record, in the PR? > >> > >> -- pmj > > > > Do you really need more details about why X/Twitter is a problem per se? > This subject has already been covered in several threads: its owner is a > fascist that promotes and enhances fascism with the help of his networks, > he deliberately updated the recommendation algorithm to create a > personality-cult for his fame, the AI that's bound to this network is > p*do-promoting, most of the people that are still there are either > fascism-enthusiasts or compliant with what the platform has become > (therefore, okay with the statu quo, which means "collaborating with the > in-place system"). > > Great -- if those are the beliefs of the RFC author, they should go > directly in the RFC as supporting language for the reasoning behind the RFC. > > Then there's a record of exactly who is voting in agreement with those > statements, and who is not. > > If there is some worry or concern about adding the reasons, that itself > will be quite telling. > > > -- pmj > I agree with Paul. -- Chase Peeler [email protected] https://linktr.ee/chasepeeler
