Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD's New Code of Conduct (freebsd.org)
FreeBSD has a new code of conduct, which is making several people angry. From the blog post: This code of conduct applies to all spaces used by the FreeBSD Project, including our mailing lists, IRC channels, and social media, both online and off. Anyone who is found to violate this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from FreeBSD Project controlled spaces at the discretion of the FreeBSD Code of Conduct Committee. Participants are responsible for knowing and abiding by these rules. Harassment includes but is not limited to: Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion. Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment. Deliberate misgendering. Deliberate use of "dead" or rejected names. Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour in spaces where they're not appropriate.
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "hug" or "backrub") without consent or after a request to stop. Threats of violence. Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm. Deliberate intimidation. Stalking or following. Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes. Sustained disruption of discussion. Unwelcome sexual attention. Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others. Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease. Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity without their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from intentional abuse. Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent. Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning). Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "hug" or "backrub") without consent or after a request to stop. Threats of violence. Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm. Deliberate intimidation. Stalking or following. Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes. Sustained disruption of discussion. Unwelcome sexual attention. Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others. Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease. Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity without their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from intentional abuse. Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent. Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning). Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.
... but if I did, I would quit. This is over the top. It feels more like a blanket list of vague infractions to have on hand so that they can rid of anyone they feel like.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... need to get that consent first.
Consider this: one person says that they are disappointed that something in the code won't be accepted because it conflicts with something else that needs to be there. A second person says, "*hugs*" as an expression of sympathy in response. That second person is now on warning for violating community standards.
Is THAT something you want in your community?
This policy goes way beyond "don't be a jerk". This is the problem with speech restrictions like this. People point to "don't be a racist" and ask what's so bad about that. Yes, being racist is bad, and expressing it is a good reason for a community to ask you to step away! But that's not the only thing in here-- especially when you realize that terms like "reinforce systematic oppression" are easily interpreted to squelch very broad ranges of speech.
Avoiding offense is a two-way street. It's not just those who speak having to avoid saying outrageous and offensive things. It's also those who listen having enough resilience to not need strict speech codes to avoid being offended, and to be able to put in context what others say to understand that there's no offense there.
Conservative and Liberal are insufficient tags nowadays.
If you identify yourself as a liberal, you probably nowadays think of conservative as meaning (perhaps not self-acknowledge) white supremacy and Trumpism.
If you identify yourself as a conservative, you probably nowadays think of liberal as meaning in favor of the kind of identity politics that leads to speech codes and censorship that begins to be reminiscent of Mao's cultural revolution.
The thing is, there are people who would at least have traditionally identified themselves with both labels who aren't either of this, but still actually possess the ability to reason. Sadly, the current climate is allowing the white supremists to come out of the woodwork and go mainstream, and that in turn is convincing people who should otherwise know better to endorse the extremes of identity politics censorship.
At the moment, the national liberal party in the US (the Democratic party) hasn't been caught up in the craziness of the left (i.e. overarching speech policies that consider saying "*hugs*" a form of agression), whereas the Republican party has at least partially been caught up in the craziness of the right (i.e. not recoiling from Trump). If anything, this makes the extremes of identity politics all the more insidious and dangerous. There need to be ways for people to stand up and point to the excesses of that without having to be identified with, or feel that perhaps they even must share a lot of values with, the jingoistic Trumpists of the world.
I have a much shorter code of conduct:
Don't be an asshole. If you are behaving as an asshole you are given one chance of behaving like a mature adult, if you don't you can leave.
One of the most successful online communities I was ever part of had one single code of conduct: Don't be a dick.
The community enforced that. And if there wasn't consensus, the founder decided.
It wasn't perfect, but what it did was drive discussion on whether conduct someone was engaging in was dickish, or if the complainer was being a whiny dick. It forced discussion on where people's boundaries on "being a dick" were, and it helped people identify when their boundaries were way out of the norm compared to the rest of the community.
In this it was a brilliantly simple code of conduct. Instead of rules-lawyering a laundry list of dos and don'ts, the discussion centered solely on the conduct of an individual and the interpretation of that conduct by those complaining about it. I find it far superior to these expansive codes of conduct, because these are essentially checklists of ways to harass someone you don't like, even if the context of their conversation with others was pleasant for all involved. If you're forced to consider every statement for intent, and determine if it rises to the level of a community defined understanding of "being a dick", it significantly limits the ability to complain about all but the most egregious conduct.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
This code of conduct applies to all spaces
And what about tabs, f*cking pieces of steaming sh*t? How can you dare to ignore my blank space and indentation identity? What are you, animals? LOL.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.