3 ms·
Except in the case of Twitter, the claim was that they banned Milo for engaging in certain kinds of behavior. Such claims are false. When you have such a lega
by adekok 10y ago
Except in the case of Twitter, the claim was that they banned Milo for engaging in certain kinds of behavior. Such claims are false.
When you have such a legalese disclaimer as above, you don't need to lie about why you're banning someone. You just say "Under the Twitter ToS, we've banned Milo."
The fact that they chose to lie about the justification for the ban shows not only that the ban was politically motivated (and not based on reality), but that they are so incompetent that they can't even spin it in their favor.
Their bias is leaking. They don't really care about their own ToS. They don't care about following the rules they put in. They do care about banning anyone who they don't like.
I find such behavior unethical, and morally repugnant.
- scrollaway 10y agoWhat does any of this have to do with codes of conduct in open source?
- adekok 10y agoThe "Code of Conduct" discussion is about a larger social issue. CoCs in open source projects are just one facet. As others have posted here, some people pushing "codes of conduct in open source" end up violating those codes themselves, and abusing their authority. These people do this not only in open source forums, but in other places, too. The underlying topic then, cannot be about the CoC. In reality, the topic being discussed is who gets to control the conversation. Along with that, who gets to decide what topics are acceptable. Not just which topics are OK for a list / forum, but which topics are "good think", and which ones are "bad think". The question for someone running an open source project, then, is will your project be taken over by people who are pushing a particular ideological agenda, and who are using your project to do so? My answer is "No.". Perhaps "over my dead body" is more accurate.