@pointlessone@status.pointless.one
Post #3381105
2026-06-23 12:29 UTC
@liberty@mathstodon.xyz I think it was a right decision to heavily restrict scope of discussion on that particular PR. The ethical arguments are well known and there's no convincing people one way or the other if they already don't hold that position (any position). Raising those concerns would've quickly devolved into a massive fight that would’ve not moved the actual policy in any way. Cutting that off allowed adoption of at least some policy. Maybe it's not ideal, not to anyone's taste but it's a policy where there was none before.
@tomekw@functional.cafe
Replies (1)
-
@liberty@mathstodon.xyz 2026-06-23 14:24
@pointlessone@status.pointless.one @tomekw@functional.cafe I get why they did it. But there's also a reason they got the backlash they did and that they rescinded that policy later. I also don't know if the policy was ever officially adopted. Last I checked the PR is still open.