SFC's use of Twitter.

Posted Jul 4, 2022 16:03 UTC (Mon) by ttuttle (subscriber, #51118)
In reply to: SFC's use of Twitter. by alfille
Parent article: Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come!

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.

to post comments

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.