4 ms·
> We have been reluctant to go into detail before now because the last thing we wanted was to put our communities through another public dispute with a for-prof
by 7bit 2y ago
> We have been reluctant to go into detail before now because the last thing we wanted was to put our communities through another public dispute with a for-profit company. However we believe you, our users, deserve to know the circumstances of our decision, so this post is an attempt to satisfy your expectation of transparency from us as an organisation.
The idea of transparency being a "burden" is ridiculous. It implies that sharing information is a problem, which seems like an excuse to avoid accountability.
- ranger_danger 2y agoI am assuming it is due to their own moderators not acting appropriately because they seem to have a big problem with that.
- gertop 2y agoSounds to me like they wanted to avoid publicly shaming a company, I see nothing ridiculous in that? How would users have benefited from knowing the specific details of EMS' incompetence/deception? Free speech absolutism has its place, but so has diplomacy.
- 7bit 2y agoThey don't say anything like that and I wonder how that sounds like that to you. You are interpreting things into it, that they didn't say.
- eptcyka 2y agoAre you aware of what happened to freenode?
- 7bit 2y agoNo, pls explain in the context of my reply.