Re: [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net
| From: | Chase Peeler | Date: | Fri, 01 May 2026 15:05:16 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-130736@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 8:45 AM Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> > On May 1, 2026, at 05:27, Alex Pierstoval Rock <pierstoval@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jim & all,
> >>
> >> Currently, the RFC states:
> >>
> >>> due to to the current nature of the site, there is no reason for the
> project to have a presence there
> >>
> >> This is unclear -- what exactly about "the current nature of the site"
> leads to there being "no reason for the project to have a presence there" ?
> Can you articulate the specifics, for the record, in the PR?
> >>
> >> -- pmj
> >
> > Do you really need more details about why X/Twitter is a problem per se?
> This subject has already been covered in several threads: its owner is a
> fascist that promotes and enhances fascism with the help of his networks,
> he deliberately updated the recommendation algorithm to create a
> personality-cult for his fame, the AI that's bound to this network is
> p*do-promoting, most of the people that are still there are either
> fascism-enthusiasts or compliant with what the platform has become
> (therefore, okay with the statu quo, which means "collaborating with the
> in-place system").
>
> Great -- if those are the beliefs of the RFC author, they should go
> directly in the RFC as supporting language for the reasoning behind the RFC.
>
> Then there's a record of exactly who is voting in agreement with those
> statements, and who is not.
>
> If there is some worry or concern about adding the reasons, that itself
> will be quite telling.
>
>
> -- pmj
>
I agree with Paul.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com
https://linktr.ee/chasepeeler