I'm honestly not sure this is worth our time at this point, but let me try once more:
> 1) I am free to choose to refuse to associate with any individual for almost any reason, even if they rely on me professionally. There are no circumstances under which I may be compelled to associate with zombie Hitler, even if zombie Hitler has caused no direct harm to me.
This is true, to the extent that you are not bound by a contract. It is also wholly irrelevant, because we are not discussing whom *you* are choosing to associate with. Quoting myself, what we are discussing is your:
>> writing essays legitimizing extralegal punishment and banishment from groups which are growing (and growing intensely) within society.
which you fully assumed in replies.
You are working hard to weaponize "communities"—or, rather, their "leadership"; furthermore, you are claiming that rescinding the "membership" of people who sometimes have been invested in "communities" for decades, without any clear breach of contract, a clear way of seeing it coming, or a clear way to adapt to new rules without negating beliefs which they did not hold as controversial, is no big deal.
It is a fricking big deal.
(I just came across that Drupal/Garfield affair, following another tweet of yours. I now suppose that this is what prompted your essay, and my!—what a clusterf*ck. Is that the event which you punctuate by "The lesson is that Drupal considered these issues and made an appropriate decision"?)
> 2) Canonical are free to choose to refuse to provide any services to any individual for almost any reason, even if they rely on Canonical professionally. There are no circumstances under which Canonical are obliged to provide service to zombie Hitler, even if zombie Hitler has caused no direct harm to them.
This is true, to the extent that they are not bound by a contract, and that it does not fall under the purview of discrimination or some other law. (Which is not something either of us is qualified, and even less mandated, to decide.)
It is also wholly irrelevant; the only reason Ubuntu was brought into this was my pointing out that the number of people who have to submit themselves to various Debian social contracts is, in effect, negligible; that, consequently, resistance is minimal and thus the case largely unproblematic.
Moreover, Canonical, as a decently-sized corporation, is already weaponized with lawyers, and subject to the legal systems of the jurisdictions in which they operate; it would be silly to believe that they are going to be swayed by your essays—besides perhaps when reusing words such as "community" and "CoC" for propaganda purposes.
Quoting myself,
>> people will only submit to organizations if they are unconscious, desperate or can enter into a "contract" which they consider equitable.
If you invest in the Ubuntu "community" without an equitable contract, you are being played by Canonical. Sure, use their mailing list and IRC server with moderation all you want—seriously, could you have picked a more ridiculous example?—but you also better figure out what your move is going to be when the music stops.
> 3) Zombie Hitler is a deliberately hyperbolic and unrealistic example, and most decisions would not be as easy. Having a clear set of guidelines regarding the circumstances under which a body of people will choose to either no longer associate with an individual or make their association conditional is better than not having a clear set of guidelines.
You could have spared us the Godwin material, but my point is precisely that you are *refusing* to clarify the boundaries within which such "guidelines" (actually, by your own admission, unappealable summary decisions which can easily threaten the livelihood of others) apply. You even brushed off the idea that legal frameworks may be of use. This as "clear" as it is medieval.
Your initial intentions may have been good, but as of today, you are publishing fuzzy essays full of fuzzy words which try to justify the "disciplining" of others for "reasons" which are not even covered by the relevant CoCs (if I correctly understand your position wrt. Drupal); writing righteous-sounding and arrogant "threads" such as this one:
("appropriate"? According to whom?); and seemingly confounding a "fan club" of vigilantes with actual legitimacy. Not only do I find it all pretty unsavory, I seriously doubt that that brand of lynching can spiral down much further without causing serious damage, with serious repercussions, for increasingly large subsets of society.
> It sounds like you're arguing that it's wrong for people to be able to choose who they decline to associate with, which doesn't sound like an argument for liberty.
I certainly am not making an argument for unbridled liberty! Conversely, neither am I arguing that it's wrong or problematic for *individuals*, or small, inconsequential groups, to be able to choose who they decline to associate with.
I have tried to make it clear that my argument was about the relationship between legitimate authority and scale. I even wrote:
>> At some point, society is going to try to turn your private "community" into "commons," or at least into some kind of regimented association. This often entails domain-specific regulation, but also, potententially, nationalization or outright breakup. You may fight it, succeed for a while, and ultimately negotiate a comfortable position for yourself—but inalienable private property, no matter its impact, only exists in libertarian fantasies.
You may order your home. You will, perhaps, be allowed to order your circle of friends. But if you think that your self-proclaimed righteousness enables you to order arbitrary and emergent "communities"; to strike other members with impunity, no matter their history with that "community," you are in for a bad surprise. And I hope that you don't believe that persuading armies of naive vigilantes to act "in your name" instead absolves you from any responsibility.
So. You see? I don't disagree with any of the points above, because they are strawmen. Assuming that those were not erected deliberately, I would encourage you, once more, to avoid "hyperbolic and unrealistic example"s, and to rather focus on the fact that group dynamics are not O(1), that side-effects exist, and that encouraging the "punishment" and "banishment" of strangers outside of a legal context is not a mission society has entrusted you with.
(Not that I care much; I'm unlikely to end up in your path of destruction. I'm just warning you, and preempting any excuses, when you find that things turn even sourer in some of the "communities" which have "benefited" from your consulting.)
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
Date: 2017-12-22 08:58 pm (UTC)> 1) I am free to choose to refuse to associate with any individual for almost any reason, even if they rely on me professionally. There are no circumstances under which I may be compelled to associate with zombie Hitler, even if zombie Hitler has caused no direct harm to me.
This is true, to the extent that you are not bound by a contract. It is also wholly irrelevant, because we are not discussing whom *you* are choosing to associate with. Quoting myself, what we are discussing is your:
>> writing essays legitimizing extralegal punishment and banishment from groups which are growing (and growing intensely) within society.
which you fully assumed in replies.
You are working hard to weaponize "communities"—or, rather, their "leadership"; furthermore, you are claiming that rescinding the "membership" of people who sometimes have been invested in "communities" for decades, without any clear breach of contract, a clear way of seeing it coming, or a clear way to adapt to new rules without negating beliefs which they did not hold as controversial, is no big deal.
It is a fricking big deal.
(I just came across that Drupal/Garfield affair, following another tweet of yours. I now suppose that this is what prompted your essay, and my!—what a clusterf*ck. Is that the event which you punctuate by "The lesson is that Drupal considered these issues and made an appropriate decision"?)
> 2) Canonical are free to choose to refuse to provide any services to any individual for almost any reason, even if they rely on Canonical professionally. There are no circumstances under which Canonical are obliged to provide service to zombie Hitler, even if zombie Hitler has caused no direct harm to them.
This is true, to the extent that they are not bound by a contract, and that it does not fall under the purview of discrimination or some other law. (Which is not something either of us is qualified, and even less mandated, to decide.)
It is also wholly irrelevant; the only reason Ubuntu was brought into this was my pointing out that the number of people who have to submit themselves to various Debian social contracts is, in effect, negligible; that, consequently, resistance is minimal and thus the case largely unproblematic.
Moreover, Canonical, as a decently-sized corporation, is already weaponized with lawyers, and subject to the legal systems of the jurisdictions in which they operate; it would be silly to believe that they are going to be swayed by your essays—besides perhaps when reusing words such as "community" and "CoC" for propaganda purposes.
Quoting myself,
>> people will only submit to organizations if they are unconscious, desperate or can enter into a "contract" which they consider equitable.
If you invest in the Ubuntu "community" without an equitable contract, you are being played by Canonical. Sure, use their mailing list and IRC server with moderation all you want—seriously, could you have picked a more ridiculous example?—but you also better figure out what your move is going to be when the music stops.
> 3) Zombie Hitler is a deliberately hyperbolic and unrealistic example, and most decisions would not be as easy. Having a clear set of guidelines regarding the circumstances under which a body of people will choose to either no longer associate with an individual or make their association conditional is better than not having a clear set of guidelines.
You could have spared us the Godwin material, but my point is precisely that you are *refusing* to clarify the boundaries within which such "guidelines" (actually, by your own admission, unappealable summary decisions which can easily threaten the livelihood of others) apply. You even brushed off the idea that legal frameworks may be of use. This as "clear" as it is medieval.
Your initial intentions may have been good, but as of today, you are publishing fuzzy essays full of fuzzy words which try to justify the "disciplining" of others for "reasons" which are not even covered by the relevant CoCs (if I correctly understand your position wrt. Drupal); writing righteous-sounding and arrogant "threads" such as this one:
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/943959866003116035
("appropriate"? According to whom?); and seemingly confounding a "fan club" of vigilantes with actual legitimacy. Not only do I find it all pretty unsavory, I seriously doubt that that brand of lynching can spiral down much further without causing serious damage, with serious repercussions, for increasingly large subsets of society.
> It sounds like you're arguing that it's wrong for people to be able to choose who they decline to associate with, which doesn't sound like an argument for liberty.
I certainly am not making an argument for unbridled liberty! Conversely, neither am I arguing that it's wrong or problematic for *individuals*, or small, inconsequential groups, to be able to choose who they decline to associate with.
I have tried to make it clear that my argument was about the relationship between legitimate authority and scale. I even wrote:
>> At some point, society is going to try to turn your private "community" into "commons," or at least into some kind of regimented association. This often entails domain-specific regulation, but also, potententially, nationalization or outright breakup. You may fight it, succeed for a while, and ultimately negotiate a comfortable position for yourself—but inalienable private property, no matter its impact, only exists in libertarian fantasies.
You may order your home. You will, perhaps, be allowed to order your circle of friends. But if you think that your self-proclaimed righteousness enables you to order arbitrary and emergent "communities"; to strike other members with impunity, no matter their history with that "community," you are in for a bad surprise. And I hope that you don't believe that persuading armies of naive vigilantes to act "in your name" instead absolves you from any responsibility.
So. You see? I don't disagree with any of the points above, because they are strawmen. Assuming that those were not erected deliberately, I would encourage you, once more, to avoid "hyperbolic and unrealistic example"s, and to rather focus on the fact that group dynamics are not O(1), that side-effects exist, and that encouraging the "punishment" and "banishment" of strangers outside of a legal context is not a mission society has entrusted you with.
(Not that I care much; I'm unlikely to end up in your path of destruction. I'm just warning you, and preempting any excuses, when you find that things turn even sourer in some of the "communities" which have "benefited" from your consulting.)