Read on Twitter
I think it's wrong that the AOS intentionally silenced people because of their opinion about honorifics.
I just wanted to mention that I don't really have much personal connection to this thread- I am only tangentially related to @BirdNames4Birds, and the AOS never followed me to begin with.
But I think this is important. And I didn't see a synthesis anywhere.
But I think this is important. And I didn't see a synthesis anywhere.
It's been a few days so if you need a refresher, the @BirdNames4Birds petition doesn't necessarily demand a huge amount from the AOS, but at the absolute minimum, the 2,500 people who signed the petition asked for some recognition prior to the conclusion of the NAOC.
This appeared to be a reasonable request, especially since the AOS specifically stated that it would do so here:
"We will discuss these issues at our 2020 meetings of Council and make a statement at the end of the NAOC VII meeting"
https://americanornithology.org/whats-in-a-name-more-than-you-might-think/
"We will discuss these issues at our 2020 meetings of Council and make a statement at the end of the NAOC VII meeting"
https://americanornithology.org/whats-in-a-name-more-than-you-might-think/
At the conclusion of the NAOC, which was a great meeting, and certainly had many diversity-related initiatives within it, there was still no mention of honorifics generally. So @BirdNames4Birds put out a reminder of sorts about the timeline on Aug 17th. https://birdnamesforbirds.wordpress.com/2020/08/17/the-close-of-the-bird-names-for-birds-petition-and-end-of-naoc-2020/
The next day, Aug 18th, the AOS send out a tweet acknowledging an upcoming nomenclature announcement: https://twitter.com/AmOrnith/status/1295858483116507142.
Unlike all past tweets from the AOS (I am not @ them in this thread), this tweet had its replied locked to followers only.
Unlike all past tweets from the AOS (I am not @ them in this thread), this tweet had its replied locked to followers only.
It was at this point that a number of twitter users noticed that they couldn't reply, and were no longer being followed by the AOS.
The AOS replied to queries about the situation with a follow-up tweet: https://twitter.com/AmOrnith/status/1296185373496946688
The AOS replied to queries about the situation with a follow-up tweet: https://twitter.com/AmOrnith/status/1296185373496946688
Now on the surface, this looks bad. It looks like the AOS specifically unfollowed people who expressed support of @BirdNames4Birds. But, there had to be a reasonable explanation.
In the follow up tweet, it looks like the AOS was receiving racist content through some source. Regardless of the source, limiting the potential number of sources of input (for example: replies) could be perceived as beneficial (although I don't agree with it).
This is a believable excuse, especially given how much racism we've seen in replies when this issue is highlighted in other outlets (ie, Daily Wire).
The tweet also addresses the unfollowing of accounts. This explanation seems reasonable, and leads the reader to assume that over time the AOS twitter account consolidated its followers and began unfollowing a variety of non-members on twitter.
However, this is weird, as described by @SamanthaSHauser: you'd need to go into the AmOrnith's list of followers with the AOS member list handy, confirming that a twitter user's name could not be found on the member list. All to simply unfollow. https://twitter.com/SamanthaSHauser/status/1296258731790016513
Additionally, as described by @SamanthaSHauser, the AOS still follows a multitude of accounts that are not AOS members or organizations (the parameters described in the tweet), including patently obvious accounts that would not require list scanning. https://twitter.com/SamanthaSHauser/status/1298098909781385221
It is also suspicious just because we've seen missteps by the AOS recently on twitter, so it seems unusual that the lackadaisical management of the account would be accompanied by such a stringent and carefully curated rule.
Realizing this, @BirdNames4Birds supporters, who wanted to express their response to the tweet but couldn't reply, concluded they were unfollowed for their beliefs.
This scenario though, that AmOrnith would unfollow @BirdNames4Birds advocates to prevent them from replying- is unbelievable on a malicious level- so debate arose as to what really happened. Did AOS unfollow accounts over time, people never noticed, until replies were blocked?
It should be noted that the accounts unfollowed, and there were many of them, were not even some of the "harshest" advocates for @BirdNames4Birds- by far. Just aligning with the cause, and remaining positive was enough.
This doubt of the connection between unfollowing and @BirdNames4Birds simmered for some time (despite threads questioning the connection in AOS reply mentions- AOS could have told the truth at any time) until tweetdeck unfollower reports were released.
When this happened, @SamanthaSHauser, @JERutter, and @birdnirdfoley posted their unfollowed lists, below, as evidence. Should be noted that they did so to fend off a lack of belief, not to punish AOS.
https://twitter.com/SamanthaSHauser/status/1298078005747744770
https://twitter.com/JERutter/status/1298246213104537602 https://twitter.com/birdnirdfoley/status/1298085761770827776
https://twitter.com/SamanthaSHauser/status/1298078005747744770
https://twitter.com/JERutter/status/1298246213104537602 https://twitter.com/birdnirdfoley/status/1298085761770827776
As can be seen from @JERutter's image, the screen shot was taken on August 25th, with unfollowers reported from the last 7 days. The AOS tweet was on August 18th, so the unfollow also had to have occurred on that same day.
tl;dr, the AOS unfollowed people for supporting honorific name changes, as a way to silence their replies to a tweet specifically addressing the movement.
They suggested that the unfollowing was due to membership, and did not speak up when timing of unfollowing was questioned.
They suggested that the unfollowing was due to membership, and did not speak up when timing of unfollowing was questioned.
Meanwhile everyone just quote tweeted the tweet anyway. So it did nothing.
Also extremely worth mentioning that many of the people unfollowed by the AOS are productive members of the #birdtwitter community who do a lot to spread information and dedicate their time to Sci Comm.
