I think the "real" discussion is not what you see on X or YT or, unfortunately, even SN. And you won't see it much on GitHub anymore either. I suspect that moderation on the dev mailing list is still relatively light, but I don't know what gets filtered out.

When the discussion was about whether or not to make a policy operator-configurable, that made sense, and I'd side with the Knots people that configurability would be good to have on Bitcoin Core. When the discussion was whether people should be silenced on GH, that made sense - I even tried to argue with Murch but without much success - and I'd side with those that got silenced, even while I don't agree with what they're saying.

But when it comes to this polarized social media circus where the answer to a little echo chamber that is causing some grief is making a bigger echo chamber and the most awful things are alleged against people... I'm really sorry but I can't side with them.

I'm still for non-censoring moderation, even though I really dislike the @anon floods on ~bitcoin and the tone. Moderation can be done with words better than a mute/ban-hammer: if you calmly explain your p.o.v. then you'll have much more impact than by silencing someone. But if I cannot have any impact by challenging Murch about the "workplace-safety" narrative that is highly disruptive to Bitcoiner philosophy, then I don't think that I will succeed.

Bottom line, I assign this to currently be the largest damage done by court cases in the UK. "we" need to recover from this.

💯