Remove alisha.eth from her role as community manager

alisha.eth has failed to uphold credible neutrality in her managing of the ENS community. She has shown herself willing to censor those whose beliefs contrast with her own. While brantly.eth did not call on anyone in the community to be censored, alisha.eth has thrown off her guise of caring about censorship-resistance in favor of pandering to the mob.

While you may disagree with brantly.eth’s views, he upheld the values of ENS that we all share: decentralization, censorship-resistance, and credible neutrality. As alisha.eth does not share these values, I propose that she be removed.


You are objectively wrong. All speech is not equal and all rejection is not censorship.


I personally do not agree with what has happened to Brantly / and find a lot of what has been going on in the last few days unjust. But the solution can’t be to spread more disunity.
Everyone has seen global movements fall and fail because of it. This is not the time to invoke more of it.

ENS has a true chance to be an unbelievably significant piece of infrastructure for the future of the web. Let’s not make this its downfall.

I do think there should be clear guidelines going forward as to what kind of spaces of discussion are hosted by ENS as an institution. I don’t think political, religious or philosophical questions should be topics of interest for ENS.

1 Like

Then what are we even doing with web3? I thought we were trying to get to a point where “trusted 3rd parties” didn’t have power of censorship.


We have to decide whether we censor or not. If we censor, then we have to decide by what standard, and at that point we’ve lost the point of web3.

If we choose to not censor, then we can’t have community managers who censor.

Again, you’re using the word censorship. Censorship would mean Brantly never even had a platform or ability to say what he did. Damn sure wouldn’t have had a chance to explain himself.

Rejection of hate-speech and subsequent doubling down on hate speech is not censorship. It is actions having consequences. Web 3 has nothing to do with facing consequences for attacking others, which is objectively what Brantly did, and then used religion to try to justify it.


Here’s a personal example - I think you’re objectively wrong and this topic is pointless, bordering on just a personal attack, but you are entitled to your opinion. Therefore I reject it, but I’m not censoring you by locking the thread. See the difference?




Alisha was my first contact in engaging with ENS. I’m an autistic person and in spite of my reputation now, my initial impression was not great at all. If people have been helped by me, or if anyone likes me, please know that it’s all due to Alisha giving me a chance.

She’s an amazing person and anyone who thinks she shares intolerant views doesn’t know her at all. If Alisha goes, so do I. She’s the best person I know period.



@alisha.eth is the best :hugs:



The situation presented before over the weekend give us an opportunity to acknolwedge our mistakes and improve as a community on our learning curve on the ecosystem.

Do not bring witch hunt behavior that comes from a non-constructive place.