Timeline for Has our policy towards political discussions on SE sites changed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2023 at 23:12 | comment | added | NeilG | Thanks @TimPost, actually I don't think there's going to be much energy involved, the user just gets to push their politics and for the rest of us we don't get a break. It's pretty much how the world works anyway and it seems SO is unwilling or unable to post clear policy on this either. "It depends" sounds like an ideal phraseology to allow moderators to be selective about instances depending on their own politics too. | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 15:16 | comment | added | user50049 | @NeilG I'd need to refer you to current moderators or employees for more specific help. All the precedence around this type of conflict that I can remember tends to start with "Well it depends on the exact circumstances", but if it's disruptive, it needs to be resolved or it will eventually blow up spectacularly with tremendous bottled-up energy (and it seems like you know that). I wish I could help more, if you think I can I'll try to be in chat this week at some point. | |
| Jan 7, 2023 at 2:10 | comment | added | NeilG | Thanks @TimPost but this user's approach is divisive precisely, and only because s/he's taking a political angle. There's no other behavior. Just because the content is political, other users will be divided into those that support and those that oppose. Just bringing in political content is automatically divisive because that's inherent to political content. The user is using SO as a platform to promote their own political position, bringing political matters into the comment stream so that other users can't avoid having it in their face, and obviously there's a temptation to respond. | |
| Jan 5, 2023 at 17:00 | comment | added | user50049 | @NeilG There were two policies at the time, essentially. One was an informal set of expectations about what and how the company would post things, the other was related to how users post and interact. This question arose when what should have been a blog post became a meta post from the company, and violated lots of expectations. In your case, if the user is causing a disruption it doesn't really matter if they're breaking a technical rule other than being disruptive, as the disruptive part is sufficient for intervention. One can annoyingly not technically break any rules, you know? | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 10:38 | comment | added | NeilG | I don't know what political matters were posted by CEO but I don't feel this answers the question. I am here seeking advice because a particular user is pushing politics and it's divisive, but I wanted to check the expectations. The thing about politics is that different people have different opinions about whether a matter affects them, especially now there are narratives which contradict science: anything goes. If there is an issue which genuinely affects users, political or not, presumably the CEO can post about it in purely user terms and still avoid politics. I have no guidance here. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 10:34 | comment | added | NeilG | Yes that was funny @Shog9 ("Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy") but those posts were user posts not political posts. Completely and very totally different. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:36 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | I read a story once about an organization that hit upon the idea of avoiding user drama by posting potentially-upsetting notices in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard", @JasonC. I forget how that worked out for the users involved, but... Probably good? | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:27 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Comments purged in response to multiple flags. Reminder that anyone who can comment here can also post answers; use that privilege. | |
| Feb 1, 2017 at 17:11 | comment | added | Jason C | @TimPost Thanks. Then, a question about the premise: "We need to be able to engage with you on our own platform when we feel that there's something important to say." -- Why do you need to be able to do that, as opposed to, e.g., doing the same thing that the rest of the world who doesn't have their own Q&A platform does, and using other platforms? To me there seems to be this pervasive and fundamental assumption on behalf of the staff that SE is the key to change, and that if it didn't exist, the world would somehow not have a way to effectively enact political change. | |
| Feb 1, 2017 at 7:19 | history | answered | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |