Comment by nemo44x | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemo44x | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's just a power grab and has gone on forever in many forms. Redefine language and classify certain language as non-compliant under the guise of whatever it is that works to your advantage. Then use this to create systemic policy to dictate towards your goals and ultimately control whatever resource it is you were trying to colonize or acquire.

Language is power and can greatly influence and define what masses of people think about their world view and their experience. Those who get to define which language is "appropriate" and which is not have a certain power to take as they please. "Tone-policing", "cancel culture", and "identity politics" aren't unique in the sense that they are designed to seize power, as this is a tale as old as time. It's a strategy that proponents believe will help their in-group and followers acquire and maintain power over cultural resources.

I'm not saying this example is good, bad, or neutral - just what it is: Using language to project influence and power and take the cultural resources you want.

More than that, once some entity is in power, language policing and other types of arbitrary rulemaking are widely-deployed to allow the power broker to quickly expose troublemakers and wrongthinkers.

Failure to adhere to arbitrary vocabulary blacklists shows at least that you aren't just totally mindlessly executing directives, which is a bad thing to show powerful people, and in many cases, it betrays your true loyalties to "not-them", because if you really believed the "them" were noble and great, well, you'd be happy to learn that WordX is naughty and WordY is approved.

Look for this in a company near you. It's used frequently.

Is it any surprise that the hackers who built the open-source movement fail tests explicitly designed to fail anyone whose default mode is not just mindless complicity? These guys spent most of their lives slinging rocks at the multi-billion-dollar proprietary OS juggernauts and generally completely obliterated them. I think it's safe to expect that "complicity" isn't very high in their value system.

Why do you consider it a power grab sooner than, say, people acting in good faith who really believe in their stated values?

It can be both. Many power grabs and coups are performed by people with a good faith belief that they're right and the current administration is wrong or dangerous.

Yet I feel like "power grab" is a loaded description that implies such a "grab" is unjustified and that the grabber is primarily interested in power for power's sake, not for otherwise justifiable, altruistic, or benevolent reasons.

Because it is a bad thing regardless who does it. If the supposed good guys were actually as good as they thought they were, they would simply aim to do whatever jobs need doing with as much integrity as they posess. They wouldn't be grabbing power, for any reason. There is no "enlightened" reason to grab power. If you don't like how someone else runs something, it's not your only option to try to take it over from them. You can also simply not join that club and not care what it does or how it does it. An organization like OSI isn't like a geographical country where you are forced to be in it, and so there is some legitimate excuse for actively vying for control over it and it's policies.

The whole idea of merit and meritocracy is that power and influence (and perhaps control, if applicable) should be allocated fairly and transparently, via processes that reliably correlate with good decision-making. Notably, a stridently authoritarian leadership style calling for bans on "evil" and "unethical" software use (as featured in the so-called "Ethical Software Definition") does not correlate with such; but to be fair, neither does the use of obnoxious name-calling like "toxic loony". To me, the latter just feels sad! So, I'd say I can see "both sides" in this, so to speak.

It's weird for open source because the ousted party can usually take the tree and fork. A prominent example of this is OpenBSD, which started with Theo being ousted from NetBSD. In many ways that fork is now more influential than the original.

My initial reaction was to compare your sentiment to nation states and consider it in its extreme to be a justification for despotic behavior, though your comment tries to rule that out. After further consideration I think the OpenBSD example is more illustrative and a more constructive reply. Outside of licensing wars which sometimes happen, there is not always a need to be the "original" fork.

> My initial reaction was to compare your sentiment to nation states and consider it in its extreme to be a justification for despotic behavior

I think maybe part of the problem across the board is a tendency to use analogous thinking to 'raise the stakes' of relatively minor matters by comparing them to very serious matters. It's important to keep ourselves grounded and remember that we're discussing programs, not pogroms.

> It's weird for open source because the ousted party can usually take the tree and fork

Ah, but they can't do this freely and effortlessly if they've been labeled as Persona Non Grata in the license by the previous maintainer. (See, it's genius! This is such a great idea, I can't possibly tell what might go wrong with it. "Programs, not pogroms" indeed.)

But then, if the prospective oustee is a long-standing member of the already-existing community — and it's hard to argue that the co-founder is anything but that — then shouldn't it be the Johnny-come-lately constable of the tone police that should be the one to fork the tree and start their own community around that?

For me, personally, it would be easier to accept a good faith answer if they explained what "sharp tone" led to the expulsion. I mean, I can completely understand if threats were made, or if disparaging comments against protected categories (i.e. sexist, racist, etc comments). Or hate speech, or content that is clearly against policy (i.e. links to pornography). Personal attacks, doxing, stalking, extended periods of harassment etc, etc, etc. There are lots of things that people get banned for and it's pretty easy to say what they are.

Banning someone because they vehemently disagree with you? I mean, that's the only thing I can parse from their statement. It's basically saying, "I do not wish to discuss things with you, so you are banned".

The funny thing is, I don't think that's inherently wrong. In any group, I think you should be able to choose your friends. If you don't want to hang out with someone, then that sucks for that person, but lots of things in life suck. However, banning the co-founder because you no longer wish to talk to them is pretty much the definition of a power grab ;-)

ESR was not banned for having the wrong opinion – many others expressed similar opinions both before and after his messages. But ESR, over the course of a few days where he returned to the mailing list, was increasingly unable to express those opinions in a professional manner.

While the moderators never stated their rationale, an unfortunate combination of off-list and on-list replies leaked one of ESR's blocked emails[1] although there were possibly others. Given the context of the discussion, ESR is not only deeply unprofessional here, but also making personal attacks against Coraline Ada Ehmke. Disagreement is OK, attacks are not.

And as Gil notes in that email, how ESR is promoting his cause is actually hurting and undermining open source, not rescuing it. I'd add that such attacks are even more unacceptable when they come from an ex-President or Cofounder.

If I had been the moderator to make that call, I'd even have considered banning ESR without any particular evidence. That guy isn't new to the scene but has a long history of troublesome behavior. Even his first message upon return did not provide anything new to the discussion, so there was no reason to believe that keeping him around would provide any value to anyone. When his messages were largely brushed off (because they contributed no novel points aside from BeInG wRiTtEn By ThE cOfOuNdEr) that only seemed to encourage him to get more extreme, thus running straight into a ban. If not after that message, surely after the next.

[1]: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists....

Can you provide examples of the "unprofessional" messages or the "personal attacks"?

So, you’re saying “toxic loonytoon” is what got him banned?

And the same adversary behind it as behind so many other similar bannings and near-bannings over the last few years. Does this person actually contribute anything _besides_ tone policing to the many communities they tone police?

It's beginning to feel like his characterization may well be defensible on the grounds of truthfulness.

maybe it was ratf*cker. He then going off saying if you don't let me say my words, the world is doomed. It seems it wasn't the first time he did this.

Thanks for giving some context. I really believe that if you are banning someone you should explain your rationale. Personal attacks are not good and if that email is to be believed then it certainly seems like a justified decision. Hopefully the moderators will be able to improve on the optics of their decisions in the future.

From the description, this sounds like a permanent ban, which is a really blunt tool -- and overly convenient, given how controversial ESR is. Keep in mind that this is about a discussion that's not in a technical, but in a political forum. After all, the OSI is a political institution, not a technical one.

If people are acting in good faith, I would expect at most something temporary.

This points at what I consider the real problem with CoCs: they're too vague and typically allow people to feel righteous while making truly toxic decisions. This stems from overly-broad language being adopted without an actual "litigation" (in the informal, community sense) of individual cases.

OSI is also a technical institution. Why is he controversial then? It's because of his statements.

AIUI, the point of codes of conduct (when used in good faith) are basically like FAQs or What Wikipedia Is Not[1] in that they're social bludgeons to avoid having the same fucking discussion with stubborn idiots, where they do this[2] to cause tedious repetitive arguments of how the project should be run.

A code of conduct, AIUI, has two main effects:

1. You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. 2. If there is a dispute then there's a formal method of bringing up the argument - a feature request or BG report on the CoC. Or more practically, when writing the thing in the first place.

And on the subject of whether it's warranted, this article[3].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_...

[2] https://xkcd.com/1277/

[3]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...

when used in good faith is the key part there, though.

If everything everybody ever proposed was only used in good faith, we'd be living in Utopia.

> You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away.

They are usually way too vague to do that. "Be kind" hangs on who decides what is and isn't kind. It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement.

It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement.

Indeed. I'm quite certain, for example, that if someone called ESR a toxic lunatic, no code of conduct violation would be found.

> codes of conduct (when used in good faith)

All true. In other news guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun can be used in either way.

CoC's are like guns in that they can be lethal when deployed. That sounds great to many people: we final have a sure fire way of expelling arsehole's from our group.

Unfortunately the CoC's come with an inbuilt defect: they all boil down to "be intolerant of intolerance". That creates wonderful opportunity for attackers, because if they can goad someone in the project to being intolerant towards them they can get the project to shoot itself with it's on weapon.

The amazing thing I've never seen a instance where a CoC has been used in anger by a project where hasn't also been used in this way against long standing members of the project. Even worse, the long standing members use it against each other! Introducing a CoC seems to have the same destabilising effect as introducing a new weapon: people rush to use it in what looks to be a pre-emptive strike as soon as some dispute comes around. Maybe that's in an attempt to take out others before they use it against them.

It's so predicable it's extraordinary. There must be something deep within the human psyche priming us to seek out weaknesses like this in "enemy groups", along with the inbuilt knowledge of how to it.

You make it sound like a deliberate strategy. But even if it was playing out that way (I refuse to be the judge about that, fortunately I'd never be). I'd take it as a given that this "takeover" is a pure chance outcome, even if repeated, kind of like how Columbus never intended to discover America. Organizations like the FSF or any open source project are just not plausible targets for an elaborate takeover scheme, people with that kind of ambnition would surely look elsewhere.

The Cultural Revolution in Maoist China was a deliberate strategy. The whole Gramscian idea of attaining "hegemony" in a "long march through the institutions" is just as goal-oriented, though success of the core idea is far more mixed than is generally acknowledged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com