4 ms·

try to take a more balanced view. just as we should not automatically assume that a person making an allegation is not telling the truth, we should also not aut

try to take a more balanced view. just as we should not automatically assume that a person making an allegation is not telling the truth, we should also not automatically assume that the person being accused is guilty of the allegations. by requesting NOT to have a judicial investigation the accusers are effectively saying "we are content to allow for trial by torch-wielding-mob in the court of public opinion and reputation" instead of allowing for a trial by an institution established specifically for impartiality and upholding the rights of both the accusers and the accused.

geofft 10y ago
There are no torch-wielding mobs here. Nobody is attacking his physical person. They're excluding him from an organization. What you are arguing is that, in the absence of a trial by a government, people have the active right to participate in an organization that doesn't want them. That goes against every bit of the ethos of a project like Tor. (And if you won't believe any other argument, keep in mind that it's not fair to him: why would the state be inclined to treat him fairly, for everything he's done to oppose the state?) https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > There are no torch-wielding mobs here. Nobody is attacking his physical person. They're excluding him from an organization. I think you may have missed what the front-page of HN looked like when this was first happening. I won't bother re-quoting/linking things beyond previous discussions (since those contain the information) but your comment is entirely out-of-sync with what was happening. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845338 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837901
  - geofft 10y ago
    Can you be more precise about where you saw someone attack or attempt to attack his physical person? If you're referring to the "DieJakeDie" account, I acknowledge that it existed, but it was very clear that it had no involvement with victims or (as far as anyone can tell) anyone involved in the Tor community. The integrity of the Tor process was not compromised by its existence, any more than the integrity of a government trial is compromised by protesters outside calling for blood.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I think you're having a pretty regrettable case of tunnel vision on this.
dfraser992 10y ago
I personally have had to deal with someone who, IMO, is a psychopath - he forced the rest of us out of this non-profit using manipulation, etc while the rest of the organization (i.e. everyone else) make the mistake of empathising with him (assuming his behaviour was the result of personal stress). At the end, he flat out stated his end goal was to derive a salary from the donations the general public was making to the org, contrary to the organization's constitution... He's now commercializing the heck out of things while having a personal (and unstated) financial interest in the commercialization. I stupidly hadn't asked enough questions about the back story of how this guy got involved with the previous incarnation of the organization - he came in, stirred up trouble, drove out the existing leadership and due to their missteps, was able to portray his behaviour as reasonable... when it became apparent he was losing some level of control over the current org, he did it all over again. My fault entirely for being not cynical enough and the other people for believing in his bullshit. I understand your point of view, but until you have been in a real world situation where the legal system is COMPLETELY USELESS, you will never really understand how the world really works (aka reach 40, not a conservative, no brain etc). The amount of ambiguity inherent in evaluating human behaviour is a lot more than you think, and people like this use it to their advantage. And the legal system is very expensive, so trying to use it to achieve 'justice' tends to be, overall, not cost effective. The legal system is ONLY about monetary issues. And people like Appelbaum know this - they know how to skate the line and to use the weaknesses of society, social relationships, the legal system ... to their advantage. Reading about Appelbaum triggered all my triggers about people who should be avoided. I really "get" this ideal of Solomon-like impartiality, but facts / evidence / scientific-ish attitude... you have to also understand people as well besides this to grok the truth and that requires actual wisdom. And over 40, you begin to understand that an awful lot of people have zero integrity, especially those whose primary goal is power of some sort.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  None of the arguments you raise point in one direction or the other. It's possible Applebaum is the psychopath you describe. It's also possible that a different psychopath has "came in, [is] stirr[ing] up trouble, drove out the existing leadership [...] due to their missteps". The fact that psychopaths exist is not evidence of Applebaum's guilt. This torch wielding angry mob might have a legitimate grievance, or they might be a spontaneous torch wielding angry mob, they might even be stirred up by a psychopath like the one you describe. That's why we need a process better than the torch wielding angry mob.

geofft 10y ago

There are no torch-wielding mobs here. Nobody is attacking his physical person. They're excluding him from an organization. What you are arguing is that, in the absence of a trial by a government, people have the active right to participate in an organization that doesn't want them. That goes against every bit of the ethos of a project like Tor. (And if you won't believe any other argument, keep in mind that it's not fair to him: why would the state be inclined to treat him fairly, for everything he's done to oppose the state?) https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> There are no torch-wielding mobs here. Nobody is attacking his physical person. They're excluding him from an organization. I think you may have missed what the front-page of HN looked like when this was first happening. I won't bother re-quoting/linking things beyond previous discussions (since those contain the information) but your comment is entirely out-of-sync with what was happening. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845338 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837901
- geofft 10y ago
  Can you be more precise about where you saw someone attack or attempt to attack his physical person? If you're referring to the "DieJakeDie" account, I acknowledge that it existed, but it was very clear that it had no involvement with victims or (as far as anyone can tell) anyone involved in the Tor community. The integrity of the Tor process was not compromised by its existence, any more than the integrity of a government trial is compromised by protesters outside calling for blood.
metaphorm 10y ago
I think you're having a pretty regrettable case of tunnel vision on this.

dfraser992 10y ago

I personally have had to deal with someone who, IMO, is a psychopath - he forced the rest of us out of this non-profit using manipulation, etc while the rest of the organization (i.e. everyone else) make the mistake of empathising with him (assuming his behaviour was the result of personal stress). At the end, he flat out stated his end goal was to derive a salary from the donations the general public was making to the org, contrary to the organization's constitution... He's now commercializing the heck out of things while having a personal (and unstated) financial interest in the commercialization. I stupidly hadn't asked enough questions about the back story of how this guy got involved with the previous incarnation of the organization - he came in, stirred up trouble, drove out the existing leadership and due to their missteps, was able to portray his behaviour as reasonable... when it became apparent he was losing some level of control over the current org, he did it all over again. My fault entirely for being not cynical enough and the other people for believing in his bullshit. I understand your point of view, but until you have been in a real world situation where the legal system is COMPLETELY USELESS, you will never really understand how the world really works (aka reach 40, not a conservative, no brain etc). The amount of ambiguity inherent in evaluating human behaviour is a lot more than you think, and people like this use it to their advantage. And the legal system is very expensive, so trying to use it to achieve 'justice' tends to be, overall, not cost effective. The legal system is ONLY about monetary issues. And people like Appelbaum know this - they know how to skate the line and to use the weaknesses of society, social relationships, the legal system ... to their advantage. Reading about Appelbaum triggered all my triggers about people who should be avoided. I really "get" this ideal of Solomon-like impartiality, but facts / evidence / scientific-ish attitude... you have to also understand people as well besides this to grok the truth and that requires actual wisdom. And over 40, you begin to understand that an awful lot of people have zero integrity, especially those whose primary goal is power of some sort.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
None of the arguments you raise point in one direction or the other. It's possible Applebaum is the psychopath you describe. It's also possible that a different psychopath has "came in, [is] stirr[ing] up trouble, drove out the existing leadership [...] due to their missteps". The fact that psychopaths exist is not evidence of Applebaum's guilt. This torch wielding angry mob might have a legitimate grievance, or they might be a spontaneous torch wielding angry mob, they might even be stirred up by a psychopath like the one you describe. That's why we need a process better than the torch wielding angry mob.