Personally, I don't know if research shows open-source code-of-conduct helps curtail the very real, very serious problem of online-community marginalization (I have seen research on that) or not, but I'd rather defer to the experts, and in any case, it's worth a try. Just as code should be written by expert programmers, community management should be directed by the advice of social experts. Again, I don't know if this is backed by research or an experiment in itself to see if the approach is effective, but I'd rather trust people who devote their lives to studying the issue than to programmers who just "feel" this is wrong. If programmers want to run their own communities and not rely on the advice of experts, they're welcome to do it outside the mainstream platforms. If their approach works better to decrease marginalization, I'm sure the experts will take it to heart.
With regards to who should be trusted to manage communities, I'm afraid I can't convince myself to believe in the experts. In most cases, these "experts" are not people who have successfully managed communities or are even particularly well educated on how they work; they are self-appointed thought leaders with, often, fringe agendas and little concern for who gets trampled in the process of enacting them. They are generally the last possible people you would want to put in charge of anything.
>. If programmers want to run their own communities and not rely on the advice of experts, they're welcome to do it outside the mainstream platforms.
Not if the "experts" do everything in their power to marginalize and poison the public image of those non-mainstream platforms, unfortunately. I think it was either Scott Alexander or one of his commenters who pointed out that, if you take over a community and impose anti-witchcraft policies, you can then easily dismiss any alternate communities -- with a certain amount of accuracy, even -- as being full of witches.
Why not? I mean I can see how the "victims" wouldn't like it, but a society without any such form of influence is a society without interaction. For example, one person living in an empty world can be completely free (within their abilities), but two (or more) who may interact cannot. Either you allow one the freedom to restrict the other's freedom, or you limit both persons' freedom to exclude mutual freedom-limiting actions (by whatever means, be they forceful enforcement, internalized ethics or any other). The best you can do is manage freedom to some mutually acceptable level.
As the accusation directed towards those "free" programmers is precisely that they marginalize others (and contrary to the insistence of some of those programmers, that accusation is backed by actual data), this "persecution" is the best means we have curtail their behavior (unfortunately they are not persuaded by other means), and since the framework of our society allows this form of persecution but not actual punitive legal actions, it seems quite fair to me. Further restrictions against such persecution would naturally cut both ways.
So, given the current legal framework where marginalization is legal but may of course have social consequences, those developers would just need to be tough and bear them, which is pretty much what they say their own victims should do. Then why do experts prefer the well beings of some marginalized groups over that of exclusive programmers? Well, as any form of full or partial freedom-restriction works both ways, the thinking is that social groups with less power deserve more protection. Obviously, no one like to be marginalized in any way -- even the more powerful members of society -- but if someone must be hurt, we prefer it to be a group that will suffer less real damage.
In any case, if you prefer that such persecution would be prohibited with more forceful enforcement (say, legal), I'm sure that could be arranged, but I'm not sure those programmers would like the result any better.
> Well, as any form of full or partial freedom-restriction works both ways, the thinking is that social groups with less power deserve more protection. Obviously, no one like to be marginalized in any way -- even the more powerful members of society -- but if someone must be hurt, we prefer it to be a group that will suffer less real damage.
Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Everybody should be protected from X" is a winning policy. "These strangers over here should be protected from X, but not you" is, to put it charitably, not.
What proper mechanisms, then, does society grant the victims of weak-group-marginalization to fight their own marginalization? You're suggesting that even drawing people's attention to it is wrong.
> Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Everybody should be protected from X" is a winning policy. "These strangers over here should be protected from X, but not you" is, to put it charitably, not.
Unequal protection is already present everywhere. It is not binary (neither is it in this case), but it is very much at the core of modern democracy. The idea is that different people benefit from society to different extents or are harmed by society to a different extent, and therefore the taxes they need to pay or the investment they get from society should reflect that. Victims of a crime -- say theft -- are eligible for restitution, while people who are not victims, aren't. The idea of unequal protection in this case is that some groups are victims to unfair exclusion, and correcting that exclusion is fair.
But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't endorse a policy where, say, white victims of theft are entitled to restitution, whereas black victims are not. That's what is all too frequently proposed by the "experts."