Timeline for Why is SE removing links and community ads about a legal fund campaign?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2019 at 9:29 | comment | added | GhostCat | if SE Inc. does the right thing, and for Christ's sake: stop digging themselves further into that hole that they themselves put them into. Meaning: asking SE Inc. to clarify how exactly they intend to further go to war with us ... is really the last thing I want them to even be thinking about. | |
| Nov 15, 2019 at 9:29 | comment | added | GhostCat | The community needs more clarity into what exactly is going to be removed and if there are any marks against the people that have those links. ... ah no, that is not what the community needs. The community needs that SE Inc. changes course dramatically. If they come in and find my profile worth changing ... they shall do that. I am creative. I will find other ways. I don't care at this point what SE Inc. thinks would be valid or not valid on the profile. I will for sure not break laws, I wont even be rude or snarky there. But I will find ways to convey the message. Sure, I would prefer... | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 22:43 | comment | added | Kevin B | Following a poor process (or no process at all) when removing a moderator doesn't eliminate the alleged reason they were removed. Expecting someone to be reinstated just because the process was bad is silly. I can certainly understand continuing to press for information to be released about the actual action(s) that caused this, of course. But pushing for a reversal when you don't have all the facts is... | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 22:38 | comment | added | Stop harming Monica | @KevinB What I described above is wrong IMO. You may disagree. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 22:36 | comment | added | Kevin B | *Assuming a wrong exists. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 22:35 | comment | added | Stop harming Monica | @KevinB Apologizing and writing policies don't fix the wrong. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 22:34 | comment | added | Kevin B | And they've apologized for that and put a policy in place to hopefully prevent it in the future. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 22:33 | comment | added | Stop harming Monica | @KevinB There is actually plenty of information. They got rid of a mod without proper process (in the words of the CTO) yet they stand behind that decision. Then they went public to make accusations that so far have been neither substantiated nor retracted. That is wrong, no matter what the unknown details are. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 21:08 | comment | added | Kevin B | I mean, that's fine and dandy, but there's no information to back it up. :shrug: | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 21:07 | comment | added | gung - Reinstate Monica | @KevinB, mods can see (presumably) most of the information. True, we cannot see the emails between Monica & SE, but we have plenty of evidence of Monica's character, & plenty of information with which to evaluate the reliability of both parties. AFAICT, there is near unanimity among mods that Monica didn't really do anything here. I've had a couple of conversations w/ mods that are more equivocal &, while their reasoning varies, all think SE's actions were unjust, disproportionate, inconsistent, & that Monica did not misgender anyone. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 20:47 | comment | added | Kevin B | They could never release enough information to convince everyone. Even posting just the content that caused the actual incident would open up a massive debate over what is and isn't appropriate. It's simply not useful | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 20:46 | comment | added | Xrylite | @KevinB You're right. To my knowledge, the community has only been presented the story of what happened from Monica's point of view. However, plenty of people have been asking for proof from the other side. We should seek the truth of what happened, not sympathetically support one side. It's just unfortunate that this has to go legal to get that information =(. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 20:38 | comment | added | Kevin B | That would, of course, require accepting fault... which assumes that there is fault to accept. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 20:36 | history | answered | Xrylite | CC BY-SA 4.0 |