These discussions frequently suffer from an invasion of strawmen destined for destruction. So it's probably a good idea to take a look at the actual list of beh

These discussions frequently suffer from an invasion of strawmen destined for destruction. So it's probably a good idea to take a look at the actual list of behavior that is addressed: - Threats of violence - Hate speech and discrimination - Bullying and harassment - Impersonation - Doxxing and invasion of privacy - Sexually explicit content - Active malware or exploits Now most people will be up in arms about #2, "hate speech and discrimination". I'm sure agreement is much higher for their rejection of "Active malware or exploits". I'd just like to submit that many people who spend a lot of time online have a distorted view of what is meant with "hate speech and discrimination". I know quite a few activists from what's probably the "left fringe", and I have never found any among them that fit the prevalent stereotype of a "PC Police". Instead, I've seen quite a few examples of the harm that can be done by discrimination (fresh example: a group of 10 people at a conference, and the police chooses to stop-and-frisk the only black guy. Twice. In front of his colleagues, while wearing a Cisco T-shirt and the conference badge). And that makes my assumption suddenly seem wrong: some malware is, except in rare cases, some lost time or monetary damage, but probably not enough to meaningfully change your life. Discrimination hits individuals. Possibly only a small percentage, and I have honestly no idea what it feels like. But I'm inclined to trust people, especially because it doesn't cost me anything. I'll rename master/slave, I'll sign community guidelines, I'll try to be a mentor, and when anybody wants to censor certain words in old books I'll calmly explain why that's a stupid idea.