Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130732
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.500.181\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net
In-Reply-To: <5c3b861a-f3ce-476a-8a24-d059069506d8@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 07:42:16 -0500
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <73A3BB52-4642-439D-98BD-051416D405CA@pmjones.io>
References: <CALrFCSwr=aK649H2Om2=Vcrfz642JsiNBfCgDVY8U1Z27KDcNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+ob5=eeNj7CU+kacUg6xXQaabZCN6v_j6spz69A5tTwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BC48A843-CED3-4EAA-B63B-C40EF91DF695@pmjones.io>
 <5c3b861a-f3ce-476a-8a24-d059069506d8@gmail.com>
To: Alex Pierstoval Rock <pierstoval@gmail.com>,
 jimw@php.net
From: pmjones@pmjones.io ("Paul M. Jones")

Hi all,

> On May 1, 2026, at 05:27, Alex Pierstoval Rock <pierstoval@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> Hi Jim & all,
>>=20
>> Currently, the RFC states:
>>=20
>>> due to to the current nature of the site, there is no reason for the =
project to have a presence there
>>=20
>> This is unclear -- what exactly about "the current nature of the =
site" leads to there being "no reason for the project to have a presence =
there" ? Can you articulate the specifics, for the record, in the PR?
>>=20
>> -- pmj
>=20
> Do you really need more details about why X/Twitter is a problem per =
se? This subject has already been covered in several threads: its owner =
is a fascist that promotes and enhances fascism with the help of his =
networks, he deliberately updated the recommendation algorithm to create =
a personality-cult for his fame, the AI that's bound to this network is =
p*do-promoting, most of the people that are still there are either =
fascism-enthusiasts or compliant with what the platform has become =
(therefore, okay with the statu quo, which means "collaborating with the =
in-place system").

Great -- if those are the beliefs of the RFC author, they should go =
directly in the RFC as supporting language for the reasoning behind the =
RFC.

Then there's a record of exactly who is voting in agreement with those =
statements, and who is not.

If there is some worry or concern about adding the reasons, that itself =
will be quite telling.


-- pmj