[larkeith]

Note that Fullerton's apology lacks any reference to Stack Exchange's turn towards the press during the controversy. As brought up in the Dear Stack Exchange letter (and in numerous Meta posts over the last week), it is concerning that SE would be willing to make a (potentially libelous) statement to the press, while refusing the same to the community.

This conspicuous absence makes me question the authenticity of the apology.

[cmroanirgo]

In this post, Mr Fullerton 'takes the brunt' of the blame, clearly defusing any more singular issues with the various individuals involved. This has the unfortunate side effect of highlighting how SE is not a community run system, but is more of an oligarchy. One wonders how it could have been handled better, but still, all decisions went through one person and it wasn't a community that did it.

[_Understated_]

My take on that decision is it's because SE is a business: They use the community to MAKE money.

Now, it's not entirely one-way as they need to be providing value to the community in order for it to continue but business decisions need to be made at some level and the community level isn't the place for it.

If SE perceived a loss in profits from community members' actions then they need to take steps to mitigate that loss and I suspect that's what they did(rightly or wrongly).

Not trying to defend SE's actions, or those of the community (I have no opinion on the matter and, not to make light of the issue, I don't really care either) but a mistake that I sometimes make is thinking businesses make decisions for reasons other than profit.

In saying that, if SE thought that putting it to a community vote (or whatever best decision making tool the community could use) would make them more money then they likely would have... makes good business sense.

Just my £0.02