Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130613
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a45f992c-a4c1-4bcd-9e3a-ade0ec3fc0c5@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a45f992c-a4c1-4bcd-9e3a-ade0ec3fc0c5@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 13:03:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CALkpNnSbSNu+3LzWNiPHmofNnKbk-SC6exmYcx_CFy2-0WT1oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net
To: Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a97fc6064f465aaf"
From: ilia@ilia.ws (Ilia)

--000000000000a97fc6064f465aaf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Linking to an account the PHP team doesn't control let alone can't post to,
doesn't make sense, so I completely agree on that point.

I'd argue that either gaining control of the account (ideal, since it's
followed by >100k people) or creating a new one and using it like any other
platform to communicate with folks who use PHP and X (still a huge platform
with a massive audience) still holds significant value. I briefly skimmed
through the GitHub comments regarding the reasoning. The point I think is
worth challenging is that "There is no PHP audience at all on Twitter/X", I
don't think that stands up to scrutiny, a basic search on X shows many
people posting on X about PHP, having conversations etc...

That being said, the sheer number of social media platforms makes it
impractical for PHP to maintain a presence on all of them, although posting
announcements via automation eliminates that friction. Perhaps the right
move is not to focus on removing X, but instead to focus on the main
fosstodon.org, and remove all commercial platforms like X or LinkedIn,
which judging by the account's followers (Geo data on Linkedin @ least)
implies it is mostly bots anyway.

-- 
Ilia Alshanetsky
Technologist, CTO, Entrepreneur
E: ilia@ilia.ws
T: @iliaa
B: http://ilia.ws

--000000000000a97fc6064f465aaf
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><div>Linking to an account the PHP team doesn&#39;t control let alone ca=
n&#39;t=C2=A0post to, doesn&#39;t make sense, so I completely agree on that=
 point.</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;d argue that either gaining control =
of the account (ideal, since it&#39;s followed by &gt;100k people) or creat=
ing a new one and using it like any other platform to communicate with folk=
s who use PHP and X (still a huge platform with a massive audience) still h=
olds significant value. I briefly skimmed through the GitHub comments regar=
ding the reasoning. The point I think is worth challenging is that &quot;Th=
ere is no PHP audience at all on Twitter/X&quot;, I don&#39;t think that st=
ands up to scrutiny, a basic search on X shows many people posting on X abo=
ut PHP, having conversations etc...</div><div><br></div><div>That being sai=
d, the sheer number of social media platforms makes it impractical for PHP =
to maintain a presence on all of them, although posting announcements via a=
utomation eliminates that friction. Perhaps the right move is not to focus =
on removing X, but instead to focus on the main=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://foss=
todon.org" target=3D"_blank">fosstodon.org</a>, and remove all commercial p=
latforms like X or LinkedIn, which judging by the account&#39;s followers (=
Geo data on Linkedin @ least) implies it is mostly bots anyway.</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div></div><span class=3D"gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div=
 dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">Ilia Alshanetsky<di=
v>Technologist, CTO, Entrepreneur</div><div>E: <a href=3D"mailto:ilia@ilia.=
ws" target=3D"_blank">ilia@ilia.ws</a></div><div>T: @iliaa=C2=A0</div><div>=
B: <a href=3D"http://ilia.ws" target=3D"_blank">http://ilia.ws</a></div></d=
iv></div></div>
</div>
</div>

--000000000000a97fc6064f465aaf--