Stack Exchange is not interested in cooperating with the community, is it?
meta.stackexchange.com
meta.stackexchange.com
All good things come to an end. :(
I believe theoretically someone could fork the entire site, but I haven't studied the recent license changes.
SE's willful lack of responsibility and lack of transparency make them an actively hostile entity towards all users, including members of communities they wanted to be more inclusive towards (good supposed intent, incredibly poor/disastrous execution). This is clear from a number of responses from people in the LGBTQ+ community that disagreed with how things have been handled by SE
I know there are good communities on SE that want to somehow try to save it, to fix this, but the only way that happens would be a complete reorganization/removal at the highest levels. It is likely best that SE have a mass exodus and become a ghost town and its members move elsewhere and try again, hopefully to build something better. Of course, any new alternative to SE runs the risk of becoming another SE.
I really hate to see it, because I've learned a lot just from lurking and reading questions and answers... there's so much wasted potential
(edited for accuracy)
The volunteers who provide the content are not part of the business picture. Possibly if they organized they might be, but currently they're like chickens on a farm.
At one time all that was the obvious inevitable endgame of "walled gardens / web 2.0" That was why these sites were funded by investors.
Did this stop being obvious at some point since AOL and Yahoo went out of fashion? I'm sorry if I sound bleak, but this kind of horrorshow is a known problem.
this explains it better. They never said anything about 'made up pronouns'. Rather that as a writer they are meant to write from a neutral perspective regardless of gender. SO said it was against a policy and has failed to provide such policy. It's clear to me this is a result of either grossly incompetent SO mods or a targeted attack.
See #2: "An SE employee announced an updated clarification to the Code of Conduct (CoC) in the TL requiring the use of preferred pronouns if known; announcing that the change is in effect for moderator communications (among moderators or from moderators to a user)."
So, like I said, she was woke (used they to avoid "misgendering"), but not woke enough (didn't want to use "Xer" or "FlimFlam" or whatever).
It seems to be en Vogue to hate the SO team. But having tried to understand some of the recent hubbubs, I never saw anything that can’t be attributed to fast growth, and excused with a basic assumption of good faith.
The HN title is the title of the linked SE post (with a prefix stripped).
I fail to see how this is excuses under those circumstances. Basic assumption of good faith goes both ways, and fast growth does not mean throwing your very important users to the curb without good reason.
Ten trillion years of unending stellar-scale nuclear fusion could pass and less energy would have been released into the entire Universe than has been expended in one femtosecond as impotent rage by Stack Exchange contributors being "fired" and then complaining about it.
If Hacker News implemented a policy wherein I had to refer to everyone as "cutie pie" and I questioned it and then they nuked my account-- so what?
Looks like you haven't really understood what the issue is but I can't be arsed to care enough and explain.