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
