Prez wrote on Apr 19, 2023, 21:13:
It is counterproductive to try and specify abuse against individual classes of people. The inference being that it's open season on anyone not explicitly mentioned. Bluesnews, for example, does the much more sensible thing and tell you not to be a dick to anyone. Examples are given but anyone not an idiot clearly understands personal attacks of any kind end in action being taken. The real test is what happens when a line does get crossed. If you thought about it sensibly instead of getting over emotional about it you would know it is far better that way.
About Twitter specifically, I am not going to pretend to know the actual reason. But if trans harassment were to go unpunished, then that is something to address. So I will repeat it: stop focusing on things that don't matter.
Maybe, but we've seen here how some people find that those rules need spelling out, and if they aren't, then people believe enforcing it is a violation of their free speech (they also often find written rules to also be that, so...)
When something is spelled out, it is harder to argue against. When something is spelled out and removed, it seems like now allowing it.
I do agree that it's impossible to spell out every rule, but if you already started that, don't remove them. Especially against people who weaponize "but you didn't ban that person when they did something totally different unless you squint really hard!"
It's fun that the rules here call out "warez." When's the last time that term was used. Does anyone under 35ish know what it is? I actually don't know the answer to that, but it makes me feel old, haha.