I've seen it so much, I'm more inclined to believe it absolutely didn't happen that way.
"I'd recommend against this open source project because it has a solo author who has a track record of not playing well with each others" strikes me as statement of fact, not vilifying.
That this happened is a statement of fact.
I'm taking my old ford explorer over to him this weekend. Do you know why?
Because I asked him what was wrong and explained the intent of the questions. We've had a working relationship for over 2 years, he was obviously having a bad day. No harm, no foul, humans are humans.
And yet, his negative behavior is a statement of fact. Imagine if I then went around town telling everyone not to use this man because he "doesn't play well with others". I mean, it's only a statement of fact, right?
Point of fact, the engine light in the truck came on earlier this week, I called him up and then drove it over so he could check codes (O2 sensor needs replacing). Had a conversation with him, where he told me his wife is living in Arizona to be a live-in baby sitter for their kids new baby, and he drives over there every other weekend (I knew his wife was in Arizona, but didn't know why).
You're campaigning against a piece of software because you don't like the author. Not for technical reasons, but because the author "forced" (your words) stuff onto other people, then after these innocents reverted it back in defense of the whole of fediverse and he got mad and said mean stuff, so now we need to defend the reader (me, and everyone else) from his meanness.
If you say so.
I'm glad you ended up having a working relationship with your mechanic but I don't think it's really relevant here. Your mechanic is not maintaining an open source project. He's fixing your car. Which is a great solo project.
I think you're confused about my perspective so let me be clear: I'm not concerned with "defending" the reader from "meanness". I'm suggesting that investing in any project run by a single person is risky: more than likely if that person quits then the project is dead. That's strike one. The fact that the single author has a history of being combative with open source collaborators suggests it might be harder for the project to ever move beyond being a solo project. That's strike two.
All of this is just common sense. I'm sorry if it rubs you the wrong way. If your mechanic decides to stop maintaining your car in the future there will be hundreds of other mechanics waiting to take the job (and, importantly, your money). A solo open source project depending on volunteers is a lot less likely to have that.
https://blog.alexgleason.me/trans/
would trigger some people
Which makes sense and means I pegged it correctly.
• Literal Neo-Nazi site. Defederated by nearly all of Fedi because they are literal, card-carrying Nazis.
• Transphobia-even-if-it-means-misogyny site run by his wife. Defederated by most of fedi, for harassment campaigns. Defederated from my instance for harassing a cis woman who worked at a feminist charity for, as I recall, having pronouns in her bio, which is apparently too much like solidarity for them. (There were a couple of good people on that instance, last time I checked. Well, one good person. I think she messaged me later, saying she left.)
• His personal instance that basically nobody uses. (It's too obscure to be blocked by most of Fedi, but it's blocked by most of the instances he tries to interact with; he inevitably breaks their rules.)
• shitposter.club: A kinda-okay, but not moderated to my taste, instance. Blocked by some of fedi; probably on the list because they still federate with his personal instance.
• freespeechextremist.com: A barely moderated instance that… well, I trust its sysadmin – sorry, its BOFH. And it is friendly. But it's a "free speech zone", with all that entails; there are some total arseholes there, and the only thing keeping them from causing major damage is the relentless bullying they get from the other users until they leave.
The bottom two are legitimately part of the Fediverse – albeit the shady alleyways of the Fediverse – but we've almost universally shunned the top three. This developer used SEO hacks to get his fake near the top of the search results. (Please don't link it here; we don't need to give it more SEO juice.)
He does not represent the people who make the protocols; he does not represent the people who curate the communities; he does not represent the communities; and yet he claims to, all the while decrying how mean the community is being to him.
We just want to live our lives, and use the 'net to talk to each other. If anyone's making this political, it's him.
