On Fri, May 1, 2026, at 5:40 AM, Paul Jones wrote: >> 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.
I don't think I have been coy about the reasons at all, but I have updated the RFC. I'll consider this a major change, so voting will happen after the 14-day cooling period. (So I will send another message about the intent to call the vote in about a week.) Cheers. Jim
