[trvrprkr]

> The biggest problem was that the company became the arbiter of what was offensive and what was not.

Companies already have to do this and they have done this for a long time. There are undoubtedly offensive words, phrases, and actions which a company actively discourages or will not tolerate.

The problem is that society progresses in disjointed ways, and common vernacular often lags far behind that as well. Instead of waiting for the overwhelming majority of people to understand that some words which once were perceived as neutral actually carry a darker, less-desirable connotation, Twitter (and others) are working to get ahead of that.

Sure, the lines may be blurry now, but that's no reason to claim that companies weren't arbiters of offensive words or actions in the past.

[_y5hn]

Modern authority have moderated speech. Trying to ban words is insulting, reprehensible and incompetent. At some online forums it may need to be done, but that is lack of better alternatives, like better moderation systems.

Moderate behaviour and speech, not words and people.

[bJGVygG7MQVF8c]

> Companies already have to do this and they have done this for a long time.

Setting aside that you've honed in on a peripheral part of the OP:

You're missing something that should be obvious here. What you're attempting to claim here is that engineers second-guessing themselves at every turn as they write code and being dependent on high-level authority to make low-level decisions at the level of word choice is normal and desirable.

It's neither. It simply doesn't happen and it's incredibly boneheaded. Same as ever: Get woke, go broke.