Embed Notice

@polotek the reason you feel like nobody is hearing what you are saying and that you keep repeating yourself is that you aren't engaging the points being raised.

You're saying there are tools available, we're saying those tools aren't readily available or equally accessible to all users. You don't seem to believe that, but it is the case.

You're saying we're trying to control everyone's behavior, we're saying we're trying to preserve privacy and safety and consent. Opt-in has been suggested and I still don't see why that would have been so terrible or unimaginable. All I've heard you say against it is that he shouldn't have had to do it that way. Why shouldn't he? What is so important about opt out? What right does he have to forcing everyone else to respond to his actions? Why is our concern for privacy less important than his desire for participants?

Finally, I've heard you say a few times that it's unrealistic to try and control how other people behave. Obviously we cannot control other people's decisions. But what, are you arguing we're not supposed to have any reactions to what other people do, ever? Especially when it impacts us? What kind of sense does that make?