3 ms·
The whole slicing of society into those deemed "offensive" and "acceptable" is a problem in and of itself. These policies are not a solution to them, it's cate
by white-flame 10y ago
The whole slicing of society into those deemed "offensive" and "acceptable" is a problem in and of itself. These policies are not a solution to them, it's catering to the problem. Niemoller's poem is an example of a divisive society being its own divide-and-conquer downfall.
Illegal behavior is illegal behavior, and if someone's behavior reaches that level, it should be taken up with the police against the perpetrator.
- geofft 10y agoThat seems like a good recipe for big government. If society can't trust that private institutions can avoid undesirable behavior, the only recourse is to make everything offensive illegal. So, conversely, if we don't want to live in that world, it is appropriate and beneficial for private institutions to have some standards of acceptable behavior beyond mere legality.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"the only recourse is to make everything offensive illegal." Alternatively, you could recognize that there is no right to not be offended. There are ~7 billion other people out there, a solid majority of whom likely hold one or more views that you would find offensive (and who find one or more of your views offensive in turn).
- geofft 10y agoSure. I have no right to not be offended, I acknowledge that. I do have freedom of association, though, and I absolutely have the right not to associate with those that offend me, patronize businesses that welcome people who offend me, etc. In turn, people who find my views offensive are, of course, free not to associate with me, not to patronize businesses that welcome me, etc., and I steadfastly support their rights to do so!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- white-flame 10y agoHow do you reconcile that with your upstream comment "If society can't trust that private institutions can avoid undesirable behavior, the only recourse is to make everything offensive illegal"? That statement seems to imply that there is a mandate for 3rd parties to provide systems free of "undesirable behavior" from particular perspectives. Freedom of association means no, there isn't. Demanding private institutions provide freedom from offensiveness implies a perceived right not to be offended.
- Turing_Machine 10y agoOr you (and they) could just suck it up and stop demanding that everyone else behave in the way that you, personally, have decided is the "correct" way. If it doesn't actively "pick your pocket or break your leg", why not let it go?
- eli 10y agoI don't have a right to not be offended, but I may have an expectation that my source code platform not subject me to death threats from other users. Very few platforms would allow that. I feel like this is a bit of a strawman. Github didn't say they would take action against anything that might offend anyone. They were pretty specific: no death threats, impersonating other users, etc.
- white-flame 10y agoIf your platform connects you to arbitrary users worldwide, why wouldn't you expect to get garbage from any joe blow that happens upon your project and feels like saying something stupid? What are these other platforms outside the "very few" that somehow prevent that? Besides, the best you can do is take action after the fact, not avoid being subjected to it, unless you cut yourself off or have weird vetting barriers between you and others, instead of an open communication platform.
- Turing_Machine 10y agoIf you're getting credible death threats, your recourse should be to the police. I'm trying to get my head around the idea that the appropriate entity to handle a death threat should be the hosting platform, and I'm failing.