@jpmc26 Maybe they wouldn't be a non-user if they didn't have valid concerns that SE wasn't a welcoming place to large groups of people, something I don't find to be in question. SO has even admitted it isn't welcoming in an abundance of ways recently: Publicly declaring it, changing chat moderation expectations, changing the Code of Conduct, publishing site data analysis, changing survey questions, and most recently changing HNQ. And in response to this criticism, the Twitter user has become one of the most villainized people I've seen SO users and moderators set their eyes on. How welcoming!

@Andras Deak If you read what I replied to, you can see that I'm not the one making it about them. But if people are going to argue that non-users opinions aren't relevant, I provided evidence to the contrary. I've also read the thread on Twitter a plenty and IMO the only people in the wrong here are the employees AND moderators that engaged either hastily, inappropriately, or at the very least with a complete tone deafness to the issue at hand.

@jpmc26 Your last comment, to which I was replying, was about invalidating someone's opinion because they don't use SO, which I was countering. The insistence that SO can't curate high quality content while also being welcome is a concept I fundamentally disagree with and I think many, many of the SE Stacks are currently proving your idea wrong. They are open, kind, welcoming, self-moderating and actively improving Q&A quality... But I agree that many users are not being treated with respect and dignity, not just veretarns and not just newbies.

Yes, I do understand what welcoming means, and I still disagree that it means quality has to suffer. It might not be as easy as being unwelcoming, but it's doable and requires a cultural change. Not currently being treated differently than anyone else is not a valid counterargument, and I'd invite you to look into "indirect discrimination" to get an idea of why. While I'm done with the back and forth, I stand by what I said. I addressed you specifically, but there have been numerous comments since the event having the sentiment and I felt at least 1 deserved public opposition.

@user202729 Social media as a contact point for customer service issues is not only a "correct" way to reach out, but at this point practically an industry standard for modern businesses. It's the gravitas that the business gives to those complaints and how it handles responding to them that's more significant, and where I see most of that unhappiness coming from. But forcing unhappy users to post on Meta isn't a good strategy for a company, any more than it'd be for a retailer to only require complaints to be made in store at the location with the issue instead of digitally or by phone.

@user202729 I believe you missed my point. I wasn't calling any comments in this thread discriminatory. That's not what indirect discrimination is. It's a specific term with a specific meaning.

@Magisch It's not my term, it's a sociological and legal term with clear definitions. If you're unsure, there's wealth of resources available online

@Magisch The exact definition doesn't matter, it's the concept that policies which treat everyone the same way are not intrinsically without bias, and that it's necessary to ensure you're not accidentally (or intentionally) exclusionary with said policies. Monica's post makes a good example of how the general concept applies to other things: HNQ "optimizes for controversy". All questions are technically treated the same way, yet controversial posts float to the top. Ergo, "not treating them differently" is not a valid argument for a system being without bias.

Jeff Atwood's latest blog post actually covers some of this discussion, tangentially, and I agree with many of the points. After reading it, I did want to clarify some of my previous comments: I'm not suggesting SO need be welcoming to everyone, which I see now that I may have implied. There is a target group (Atwood proposes "professional and enthusiast programmers") we should be focusing on, and I don't disagree with that.

@jpmc26 I explained my intent more clearly in my reply to Magisch, and my most recent comment above yours clarifies that I don't think all groups are of our concern.

@jpmc26 I think you're putting words in my mouth.

@GrumpyCrouton That's certainly an interpretation.

@GrumpyCrouton I feel like each sentence in that reply is addressing a different issue or has a different assumption in it that I don't have the time or character limit to address. I'm sorry. I also I feel like I've already derailed this thread much more than I ever intended, anyway. But I'm open to discussing this in a different venue.

@GrumpyCrouton You may not see it as different issues, but I see distinct ones, and several assumptions about welcoming, HNQ, active users, and more. As I said, I'd be happy to discuss elsewhere but this simply isn't the place anymore.

Well, it finally gave the chat generation option, so that opens up a more appropriate venue, anyway.

Sorry about slow replies, I'm busy today.

@GrumpyCrouton But the action within an hour has been said to have only really happened because they'd heard the complaining for years. If that hadn't been the case, then I think it's highly likely that the first response would have been much different.

Yes, how that delivery was handled I think is pretty universally considered to be Not Good. I don't disagree with that at all.

Unilaterally Nuke it From Orbit and Then Tell You (Sorta) has happened a few times in SO's history, and it's a problem.