Deprecate X #893
Comments
|
+1 from OpenTelemetry (https://bsky.app/profile/opentelemetry.io) is there a cncf starter pack? ^_^ |
|
For the Kubernetes project, SIG ContribEx Comms handles the use of the social media channels. |
|
Just for explicit clarification purposes, is the ask that CNCF move its account off X and primarily onto Bluesky? |
|
+1 NB |
|
I must disagree here, we have recently discussed this only a couple of weeks ago in SIG ContribEx Comms. Kubernetesio is our Biggest End User Facing Channel with over 310k Followers. |
|
I can speak for only Kubernetes and none of the other CNCF projects. This has been discussed multiple times in Kubernetes SIG ContribEx Comms meetings. Gravity really matters when we talk about spreading a message far and wide. For end user facing communication we have the largest following on Twitter/X. Until that changes we are unlikely to sacrifice an outlet like that. That's not to say we support the network or its owners. Personally, I have stopped posting on Twitter/X and deleted the apps. Interestingly, my plan going forward is to only use it for work things or important Kubernetes news. My own audience size there is greater than any place one place as well hence why I'm not deactivating it. |
|
I've also participated in previous conversations around this, an important topic. Firstly, I'm personally not against CNCF-related accounts (I'm only speaking as part of Kubernetes SIG Contribex Comms) leaving X or any other platform. I agree with @mfahlandt comments on both reach and the regional specificity of the reasons behind the push, but OTOH I also think that we shouldn't gloss over the fact that the LF is a US-based 501(c). I personally haven't left X, but coming back to reach, I can understand a position that doesn't consider reach the most important factor: in this case the change is implicitly driven by a shared judgement of the changes done in X, considered by some (or many, or most) to be incompatible with the community ethos. My suggestion, as someone who was already seeing accounts shadow-banned or deleted before the transition from Twitter to X - and that continues to see this happening in BlueSky on world topics, is that a specific decision on leaving X (or Y, or Z) comes with some broadly applicable reasoning behind it that could, in the present and in the future, be applied to other social networks - including the ones that are being favoured now. This will be necessary anyway since I don't think that dropping X will go unnoticed, some sort of statement will be asked, especially with lack of reach not being a reason to drop it - and as @chris-short and @mfahlandt mentioned, going by reach alone X is quantifiably an important outlet for us. The description mentions "issuing guidance", what I'm saying is that we should consider this guidance to be more expansive than just a list of allowed networks, and more about what leads to the decision of dropping them. Apart from that, I'm 100% behind supporting other social networks. |
|
This issue relates specifically to the foundation's social media accounts (@ CloudNativeFdn on X and @ cncf.io on Bluesky). The discussion for individual projects including Kubernetes is separate. Therefore, discussion in Kubernetes SIG ContribEx Comms meetings etc, is good and healthy, but not related to this specific issue. Let's not confuse them. @mfahlandt please clarify if your "I must disagree here" comment is addressing this issue regarding the CNCF accounts, or the kubernetesio account (which is not being discussed here). I think it's the latter but want to check. To @karenhchu 's request for clarification, there are three options for addressing this issue:
My personal preference is for (2) as the "middle path". It seems like a good compromise recognizing everyone's concerns. I understand the arguments for both (1) and (3) as well. My primary concern is that we start engaging at least on an equal basis with Bluesky -- and don't repeat the last week, where we had literally hundreds of posts on X around our flagship event, while Bluesky still says "No posts yet". That is objectively tone deaf to the community. I have a secondary concern that I believe posting on X has become inconsistent with our community values, but recognize that is a judgement call that others may disagree with. |
Speaking personally, I support option 2 here, but I also want to add that I feel like using Twitter/X as a primary vehicle for communication is broadly incompatible with not just community sentiment but also the mission of open source and the CNCF more broadly. Changes to that platform have made it more closed and opaque, which stands in stark contrast to the spirit of collaboration, community, and conviviality that open source thrives in. It is incumbent on us to communicate widely, yes, but it is also incumbent on us to lead. |
|
If the objective is to maximize reach and engage with as many community members as possible, it’s essential to maintain activity on platforms where the largest number of interested individuals are likely to be found. At the same time, exploring newer platforms like Bluesky makes sense—especially to assess if they can truly generate comparable impact. Having a presence across multiple platforms ensures inclusivity and broad accessibility, which aligns with open-source values. |
|
This issue reminds me some years ago people saying, move out of Github, it has been bought by Microsoft. Finally, nothing special changes, GH is already here and people too. |
|
Would it not make more sense to continue posting on all social media platforms and let user know that people of all stripes are welcome and encouraged to use CNCF tools? Why build walls and make others feel excluded when instead we can take an inclusive approach that lets everyone know they are welcome to use our tools and contribute positively to our ecosystem? Let's model the values we believe in, and rebuke the trend towards building silos and promoting isolationism. |
|
Just as an observer, I hear that X and the downward trajectory it's on makes it a suboptimal (and potentially unethical) channel for primary communication of critical CNCF/k8s alerts, but that the pragmatic necessity of reaching as many invested humans as possible with alerts creates tension with that consideration. Perhaps consider a transition schedule (timeline for illustrative purposes only):
|
So let's say we stop posting to X on ethical grounds. (What are those ethics exactly, and where are the ethics stated?) What's next? Disallow any new CNCF projects that have a Twitter account? And after that? Disallow any CNCF ambassador from having a Twitter account? Then fire every employee that posts on Twitter? And how far are we willing to allow our intolerance for others to go after that? Which social media platform do we target next? And how does any of this demonstrate values of tolerance, openness and community? My feeling is it doesn't. |
It is somewhat towards both - the CNCF Account also has 100k Followers and is used as a communication channel. Therefor I would prefer to have messages send equally to all channels and once the majority moved to other sources the discussion could start again. One of the main reasons - it is generally really, really hard to reach End Users. At least in the past for the Kubernetes project it has been difficult to do critical comms and this improved with access to large accounts on X. Also as stated if we are not using all the channels we eventually will exclude people again and this is IMO not friendly to the community. I understand the resentment towards the platform, but the discussion of deprecation is in my opinion to soon. |
CNCF should not voluntarily select venues and forums whose policies for conduct and enforcement of those policies are at odds with the CNCF's Code of Conduct. Presuming good faith about your slippery slope argument...
No. As OP suggested, each CNCF project should get to make their own determination.
No.
No.
Tolerance is not a moral absolute. Tolerance is a social contract. We each mutually agree to respect the dignity and freedom of individual expression of others - how they dress, how they pray, whom they love, how they identify, how they express culture - so that we're able to collaborate harmoniously and safely. If somebody breaks that social contract, they're no longer covered by it. It does not therefore make it morally wrong or hypocritical to be intolerant of those outside the contract. Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact. Twitter's culture, which is a by-product of what behavior is amplified and what behavior is suppressed, demonstrates intolerance inconsistent with the inclusivity of CNCF. This is not a complicated ethical calculus, friend. |
It's ironic that the most intolerant around us are the first people to quote the paradox of intolerance. Twitter is a community of 400M users. Painting them all with the same brush, or extrapolating your experience on the platform to everyone that uses it is not intellectually honest by any means. If there is a bug that needs to be fixed, or an update that should be made, why would we want to limit the reach of that notification? Again, let's embrace openness, community and tolerance. Blocking 400M people out of spite is the height of intolerance and it is not the type of behavior CNCF should be modeling to the world. |
|
Hey all, I love the spirited debate about what social channels to support and CNCF does have a basic policy outlined here that was created when Twitter was the dominant channel: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/social-guidelines.md These are actually a bit overdue to be updated since CNCF itself and projects have social accounts on almost every platform out there, from Twitter/X, Mastadon, LinkedIn and even including global social platforms like WeChat. We will do an update here to ensure that's clear: #895 In essence, we leave it to the CNCF projects themselves to decide where their social accounts will be and we help manage them. CNCF itself is a global organization and we want to ensure we reach everyone so we basically are on every platform out there and will continue to go where our communities and contributors operate. We won't deprecate a particular social channel but plan to support all channels are communities and contributors partake in. |
With this stance, does CNCF have accounts on Truth Social or Parler? If not, why, and how would having accounts on those platforms be different than X now? |
Have we verified that there are 400M active users of kubernetes or other CNCF projects on twitter? |
Are you suggesting that if the CNCF community is a minority on Twitter then we are justified in discriminating against them? Discriminating against any minority seems like something we should be opposing, not supporting. Discrimination of any kind goes directly against the CNCF code of conduct, nor is it in line with the social media policy. |
I can't speak for the social media team, but most social media software supports posting simultaneously to each of the major platforms. Truth Social and Parler support is relatively uncommon with scheduling tools. So to maintain support for Twitter costs nothing, while going out and adding support for every boutique social media platform would come with a cost. If there is a bug fix that would protect someone's servers, or potentially bring down a hospital if it weren't applied, I'd want to know the updates and notifications were broadcast as widely as possible. It's the best thing to do for both the community, and for vulnerable people who don't even know their wellbeing depends on CNCF related software. Compassion, empathy, openness and community are all great values to model for the wider community. |
I don't think that word means what you think it means. |
|
If I used it incorrectly I apologize. The sentiment is that discriminating against people, or being unjustly prejudicial against someone simply based on how we group them, is wrong. Hopefully we can all agree on that. |
If your narrative that choosing not to use a specific platform of all then freely available ones is "discrimination", then you are absolutely misapplying the word. Not posting information on Twitter that is freely available on other social media outlets is no more discrimination than holding Kubecon in one city versus another. |
Exactly. Free association is a right, and judicious exercise of that right is a responsibility for community stewards. |
You're actually incorrect on both points. To discriminate does mean to differentiate. So indeed, choosing one city over another meets the dictionary definition of the word. Although making an informed choice isn't typically what we mean by discriminate. In typical parlance it implies an unfair, unjust, spiteful or mean choice between two or more equal or similar groups. There is no extra or additional cost to supporting Twitter. So arbitrarily withdrawing support from one platform while providing it to another is indeed a form of unjust or spiteful discrimination. I'm actually not so sure why you want to cut off one of the largest audiences from important notices and updates? I can only assume your intolerance of Twitter comes from a difference of political opinion where you want to penalize them for not sharing the same political beliefs as you. Again, that would go towards the discussion of unfairness or spitefullness. We have the option to work together, find a common ground and model inclusiveness instead of divisiveness. Your demands to drop support for Twitter is divisive. My suggestion is we be tolerant and accepting and choose inclusiveness. But I accept we can differ. Only, I won't seek out ways to punish you for disagreeing with me. You seem to operate differently. |
And to you, being judicious means arbitrarily withdrawing support from any organization or social media platform that you don't like today? I don't think that's what the word 'judicious' means. The real problem is if we let you and your cancel-culture, pro-censorship cabal win, it won't stop here. If you actually believe it's unethical to post on Twitter, then you'll soon be banning every client or employee with a Twitter account. Then it moves to Facebook and IG and Google. And GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which was CEO'd by one of the biggest frequent fliers of Epstein Island. Where are your ethics now, using a platform where its corporate lineage maps back to a man who cohorts with child molesters? Or do you turn a blind eye to that? Civilized nations respect the right to free speech. They know that if they let the censors win, things quickly devolve into tyranny. It's also why inclusion, openness and tolerance are praised over exclusion and intolerance. |
Unless you have evidence that Satya Nadella did this, I believe this is libel, which is against the code of conduct for the CNCF.
Free speech isn't absolute when it comes to the government. It doesn't include libel, for example. I am unaware of any "civilized" nation that has absolute free speech. Twitter doesn't have absolute free speech, nor has it ever. The CNCF itself doesn't have absolute free speech, and that is apparent in the Code of Conduct. The narrative that tolerating any form of speech regardless of its intent or impact is inherently exclusive to those impacted by someone else's hate. The fact that you are twisting it into a rant against so-called "cancel culture" is not a surprise, as no one felt your objections were genuine, but the your argument is still without sundtance: No one is negatively impacted if the CNCF no longer posts on Twitter. No one's speech is restrained by the CNCF no longer posting on Twitter. |
I was referring to Bill Gates, a man who spent a lot of time along with Bill Clinton on Epstein Island. It's all well documented.
I never said anything about 'absolute free speech.' Please avoid straw man arguments. It discredits you.
I think the people on Twitter who would not longer get the updates or be able to enjoy the content created by the CNCF account would be negatively impacted. I mean, the whole reason you are on this whole 'cancel culture' quest is to negatively impact people, is it not? Why else would you want to end a service that costs marginally nothing to run and helps thousands of people? Well, that question sorta answers itself, doesn't it. |
Bill Gates is no longer the CEO of Microsoft, nor was he CEO when they purchased GitHub. We are concerned with the current CEO of the company of Twitter, so erecting former CEOs is an almost comically desperate amalgamation of strawman and whataboutism fallacies. As for folks receiving news and updates, there are other freely usable and available platforms for them to obtain information passed along from the CNCF. They would not be negatively impacted unless they choose to isolate their information source to a single platform. It's not a resilient practice. That's a consequence of their own actions, not any so-called "cancel culture". |
|
It's very interesting to see which behaviors you will justify, which behaviors you will brush aside and which behaviors you will protest against.
So it's not about the platform, but it is in fact a vendetta against the person running it. Interesting.
The unless says it all. It's your admission that yes, they will indeed be impacted. Unless of course they submit to the compliance test you are forcing upon them as a punishment for them not being on board with your politics. How about we don't force them to submit to a compliance test at all and continue to post on Twitter? All of this is most disagreeable behavior and most definitely is not in line with the spirit of community, tolerance for others and open communication. |
I'm sorry, but this is just plain ridiculous now. If someone is running a critical infrastructure then twitter (or any other social media for that matter) should be the last place they should be looking for critical updates due to utter mess that social media runs on. SM seems like a relatively nice and convenient tool to promote certain things and that's all. |
|
I understand the desire to debate this topic, but this thread is quickly turning from a discussion into personal arguments and attacks. Also - as a response has been made, and the issue is closed, I am going to lock this thread. For the CNCF's response, please see this comment #893 (comment)
|
I believe the community consensus is now clear that we should terminate all activity on X (formerly Twitter), and move the primary social media channel to Bluesky. The account is already set up, let's just move all the posting there.
I would also issue guidance recommending projects do likewise, although obviously it's each project's decision what is right for them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: