![]() ![]() I can understand the team having certain philosophical beliefs and behaving accordingly. For example, The Philosophy Paperboy site can give you an RSS feed of search results for diverse philosophy papers about abortion. If I have somehow misinterpreted the absoluteness of the team’s judgements, but there is still the desire as people “in the world” to contribute something to the conversation, perhaps the tweets could have modelled the kinds of virtues it hopes of NetNewsWire users by sharing, for them to read and think about, a feed or two the team trusts that offers, in their estimation, the best opposing arguments or most insightful variety of commentary about abortion. Since it seems the team has instead absolutely judged one belief the only acceptable belief and rejected others, then the team may want to consider changing the Code of Conduct and the web site’s reason for writing an RSS reader to include agreement or indifference with the team on controversial issues. More importantly, people have less opportunity to think for themselves, a skill quickly overcome by the psychological forces at work in social media. Suggesting agreement with the beliefs of the development team as a precondition for using NetNewsWire undermines its part as an answer to the web we want, by creating division, alienating and discouraging people from taking control of their news and reducing the damage of social media with its algorithms, echo chambers and virtue signalling. It would also seem the tweets undermine the reason for writing an RSS reader by introducing barriers to people getting news via the open web. Inviting people to not use the app does not strike me as “sing welcoming and inclusive language” or “eing respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences”. But then it would seem the recent tweets do not meet the Code of Conduct. Perhaps the team does think people can legitimately hold diverse views about abortion. So it should be quite obvious to expect (and we do find) many well-meaning truth seekers to arrive at different views. For example, the essential question abortion poses is this: when is it okay to kill a human being? This is - at the very least - a complicated philosophical question that most people do not have the competency to clearly reason about without training. It surprises me that it seems the team does not believe people can legitimately hold diverse views about abortion, because the kinds of questions it raises are so obviously complicated. I was struck by the conviction of this tweet. If you disagree, we invite you to use a different app.- NetNewsWire June 24, 2022 The NetNewsWire team believes in the right to privacy, that women’s rights are human rights, that abortion is healthcare, and that the right to choose is a fundamental right. The comment is addressed to the team and is about my ability to be on the team and contribute to the project. What follows is the comment I wrote in the thread about a tweet on NetNewsWire’s Slack workspace. I have contributed to the venerable open source iOS and macOS news reader app NetNewsWire for years.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |