[dewey]

> However the site got funding and started to focus on “diversity” and “inclusion” at all costs. Created a new CoC and the beginner content flooded in and has gone downhill since.

I was with you until that sentence. Focusing on “diversity” and “inclusion” or having a Code of Conduct with values like "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" is most likely not the reason for a community going downhill or beginner content flooding in.

The more likely reason is that the community became too big, the fluff posts from Medium shifted to other platforms and them not having a solid system for curating and surfacing interesting and valuable posts.

[AdrianB1]

As the article is practically saying it, in order to be "inclusive" quality filtering does not exist. That makes quality nosedive, but it is inclusive - makes sense?

[addicted]

No, it doesn’t.

Unless you assume that only a certain group of people can put out quality articles.

Which based simply on HN articles is obviously not true (even though some people may continue thinking it is due to their preconceived biases, based on how HN comments in articles written by women will invariably have multiple people refer to the author with male pronouns).

[AdrianB1]

Read again the paragraph with the title "What could Dev.to do better?". It is exactly that: no downvotes or flagging of low quality content in the name of inclusivity.