Remove refs to Twitter #487
Conversation
|
I am not really sure about that justification. I feel that what's important is if there is regular content there or if it is useful in any way for people who may have an account (regardless of any move to bluesky or any emerging platform). I always thought those platforms are cumulative and movements between them are more like fads than anything else. I do not see the current uproars as anything else. |
|
I am very much in favour of removing X. |
|
But if it is abandoned by whoever can post to that account, yeah sure.
Yes, this is the far more salient point. There are certainly many issues
with X/Twitter, but one might still wish to reach people who do use that
platform (by sheer numbers) - but if whichever community member is/was
maintaining it no longer is and there are no volunteers, then ...
… Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Removing the account is another story. I think @haraldschilly was operating it. One can (probably, I am not sure any more about anything regarding twitter/X) make it private, or erase it completely. We can hold a separate vote on this if needed. I don't think we should have anything to do with a platform where the owner's favourite pastime is insulting other users, and trolling in general. |
It's too distracting for 99% of potential Sage users to get any useful info from there, to put it mildly. Otherwise, we could also think of settling up a p0rn0hUb account. :-) |
|
If nobody wants to be active on that X-account, I still would keep it (as well as the credentials to that account) but let it sleep. If we delete it, someone else could renew/occupy it and post things we don't like. In the bio of that account we could write >>not active here anymore, but here are links where you can find ...<<. |
|
+1 for removing any reference to X from Sage's home page. |
I'm curious on which information do you base this? I found If ‘academic X’ is sinking, where are research organisations going? from September 2024 stating "Pretty much all of the over 250 accounts remain active on X". Besides that, in my opinion "Academic institutions" are not the sole target audience of SageMath – it's a GPLed software that can be used by anyone for any purpose. X is also still in use and has active users. I'm assuming it's probably a quarter for facebook. I don't believe there is any good data out there, I just found sites like this one claiming some numbers.
That's not true. You can open a link like this one without an account (incognito mode) and see the content. This is arguably even better that facebook, where the content is buried behind two layers of banners – e.g. sagemath org page. Bluesky is similar to X, except that if there is any interaction with a banned account, there is no way to view the content without a non-banned account. In summary, I sense this is more a "political topic" and taking sides with a software project that supposed to be neutral – at least in my opinion – harms the project. So, I'm against removing the links. Rather the URLs should be fixed … and it's true, I'm not posting there as @sagemath due to being too busy, but IMHO there should be an outpost for sagemath as well. |
I agree with the first part of the sentence. However, I think that nobody, and no organisation, should be neutral with respect to an agressor, and I do think that Elon Musk is an agressor. EDIT: In fact, it seems to me that the most neutral action is to remove the links. The platform (just as any other social media platform) is supported by linking to it, that is part of their business model. Thus, the following is not part of my personal argument for removing the links. I was active (mostly as reader) on twitter, and was happy to switch to bluesky (after mastodon failed to attract enough people from the areas I'm interested in) when almost all of the scientists and journalists I was following left for the new platform. But of course, this is mostly climate and Austria. I don't think that the data on the site you cite should be relied on, because it is extremely likely that a substantial portion of the network activity is meanwhile by chatbots. Most importantly, however, the numbers don't (and cannot) say anything about quality interactions. Finally, I also think we should not refer to facebook or bluesky or any other platform either. I think that the risks outweigh the potential value. |
|
Fine, it is politics. There are politics where one cannot stand away from, and keep a presence and a link to a modern crossover of circus and Völkischer Beobachter is unbecoming of a project I can in good conscience participate in. If the link is not removed I will be forced to leave the project. |
To remain neutral would mean watching the global decline of democratic principles. Of course, this process has been driven by all kinds of social media in recent years. But now Musk and Trump (with Zuckerberg as the backer) are escalating massively. I think it's time to take a stand. |
The subject says it all. Academic institutions are leaving the platform en masse, it's no longer possible to follow links there without an account, etc etc.