Re: Debian's Presence on Twitter (X)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:37:14AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:29:46AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Let's just not pretend that there is some objective notion of "safe"
> > that we are pursuing, [...]
>
> I did not use the word safe. I'd like to think I was particularly clear
> with my stance here. What I said quoted below again.
>
Raphaël, however, did use the word "safe" and he used it to mean
essentially the same thing that you stated, "without harassment". More
precisely, quoting from his message:
RH> [1] By "safe" I mean at least as safe as our "code of conduct" asks for:
RH> i.e. to be respected and never threatened. And there must be ways to
RH> sanction/ban those who are not respecting the rules.
I used "safe", with quotes, to indicate that as the intended meaning.
Now, I think it is simply absurd to think that X (or Twitter, or any
social media platform, including Mastodon and the like) would ever or
could ever be "safe" in the same sense as our code of conduct defines.
Our code of conduct applies to Debian spaces. It does not apply to
social media platforms any more than it applies to the main square in my
town. Which is to say, it doesn't and it can't.
> | Twitter is a place where people I care about don't feel like they can be
> | without ongoing harassment, so I don't particularly want to be there,
> | even if I don't get harassed.
>
> I have no doubt many people find X to be more welcoming to their views
> than twitter was pre-2020.
>
I likewise have no doubt. However, considering that we live in a world
where merely hearing an opinion contrary to one's own beliefs or not
receiving enthusiastic affirmation and support is purported by many
people to be "harassment" (and even "violence"), and wrongly so, I would
venture to say that what we're really debating here is more along the
lines of "I don't want to be on the same platform where people are
allowed to express opinions I disagree with." Which, to be honest, is a
pretty dumb reason to leave a platform.
It's also dumb to leave a platform because the guy who owns it made an
awkward gesture in a public speech, yet at the same time have our
flagship conference regularly accept sponsorships from companies with
histories of supporting and extensively collaborating with, let's say
"questionable" (using a generic term here to keep this thread from
really going off the rails), political regimes.
So, to summarize, our position seems to be "if you let people express
opinions we don't like then we won't use your free product, but we'll
happily take your money even if you helped cause actual physical harm to
lots of people (up to and including death)."
I believe that this is what the Bible refers to as "straining at a gnat,
and swallowing a camel."
Oh well.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: