SFC's use of Twitter.

Posted Jul 3, 2022 22:39 UTC (Sun) by alfille (subscriber, #1631)
In reply to: SFC's use of Twitter. by bkuhn
Parent article: Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come!

Perhaps I'm a little tangential here, but giving "ironic" names to someone else's product is also disrespectful (Agrawaland, Musktown, etc) and doesn't raise the level of discourse.

SFC's use of Twitter.

Posted Jul 4, 2022 16:03 UTC (Mon) by ttuttle (subscriber, #51118) [Link] (2 responses)

I hate this. Whether or not I care about someone disrespecting the product, it's obnoxious:

In a conversation about the merits of the product, it's lazy -- it's a way to smear the product without giving a proper explanation.

In a conversation about something else, it's rude -- it's a way to push the speaker's opinion about the product even when it's irrelevant or distracting.

SFC's use of Twitter.

Posted Jul 5, 2022 22:34 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link]

Is it always, though? I'm not sure. If you consider it a commentary on the autocratic governance of such hypermedia giants, it's not unexplained (the reason for your annoyance #1), and neither irrelevant (annoyance #2.1) nor distracting (#2.2).

Maybe your annoyance with such discourse comes from lacking the usage of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity -- a principle that is very useful in a respectful and beneficial dialogue. "Be strict on what you produce and lax on what you consume", like Unix :-) ...

SFC's use of Twitter.

Posted Jul 8, 2022 5:42 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> In a conversation about the merits of the product, it's lazy -- it's a way to smear the product without giving a proper explanation.

It depends. Making a pun with the name "Fox News" is what you wrote. Calling it "Murdoch TV" is an extremely important reminder that it's "free" only because _you_ are the product - without making fun of the name or smearing anything.

I find "Musktown" closer to the latter.