That is a crude example because you can still participate in the core service offered: sleep a night in a bed. You will also run into trouble if you say “only for bipods”, people with one leg may not sleep here or other discriminations. So you argument hinges a bit, because that is exactly what is at stake here: You cannot participate in a forum called “Discourse” not because you provided unhelpful or false arguments in a discussion, but because you used a prohibited tool and your text was too polished and a tad too long.
Thanks for trying to put me into a box. The fact that everything I have addressed so far in my posts is being substantiated by the papers I cited in my last post in the other thread. It is instead my experience that some people from the natural sciences and engineering oversimplify softer topics dealt with in the social sciences like sociology (e.g., power distribution).
Do I have to take your word for it or what is the exact governance procedure here? Currently, there is a strict rule (e.g., only minor editing and pure translation) with loose administration, i.e., the moderators have a lot of discretion to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
While you deny this being a democracy or even a state, the principles from democracy are hard to waive: Majority rules but minority rights, clear rules are what give us a free space to meet and engage to the best possible outcome. My freedom to say or write statements should entirely be judged by its content and responsibility, not its background and not depend on mere “discretion.”
Certainly. But Discourse is paid for. And it is paid for by Julia Hub to my knowledge, which receives funding from organizations like NumFOCUS. Such a sponsor is committed to “promote open practices in research, data, and scientific computing” and envisions “an inclusive scientific and research community”.
I certainly wonder whether they really understand that the main discussion and announcement platform for Julia is less clear and substantially more restrictive than major science journals (e.g., disclosure and responsible use will get you published) given that the evidence for GenAI-moderation harming discussions is more than inconclusive; in fact, there seems to be even evidence on the contrary as it may help to avoid misunderstanding?