5 ms·

What's the point of noting that they have the right to do this? Was anyone arguing that SE violated the law? Their culture is stupid and alienating to many int

What's the point of noting that they have the right to do this? Was anyone arguing that SE violated the law? Their culture is stupid and alienating to many intelligent people.

geofft 7y ago
Because the comment at the top of this thread uses the phrase "punish that assumed thought crime." It's just a disagreement of values. I'm not going to hire a Catholic to be a pastor at my Lutheran church, but that doesn't mean I think that Catholics are committing thoughtcrime. (Despite the historical fact that many Lutherans and many Catholics did go to war for disagreeing with each other thoughts.)
- herostratus101 7y ago
  You really can't grasp the differences between a technology site that's used by practically every software developer and a church?
  - geofft 7y ago
    True, I've never heard of an official state established Q&A site. So there's even less danger of state suppression of rights in the case of the technology site.
    - herostratus101 7y ago
      Unlike a church, most of the world's programmers have to use Stack Exchange in some capacity and abide by its policies. You're being obtuse.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - geofft 7y ago
        Huh? Why? I mean, first, I'm surprised at the implicit claim that most of the world's programmers do use Stack Exchange and abide by its policies. I don't have a Stack Exchange account. I occasionally run across it in Google searches, but I don't have to abide by any policies to read a website. And my company (which is in a regulated industry and is IP-sensitive) prohibits us from posting detailed information about our work externally without review by the security team, so I assume most (I certainly don't assume all) of my coworkers don't post to Stack Exchange from work / about their work. I can't remember the last time I heard a coworker (here or at a previous employer) say "I asked StackOverflow and they said....". There are a lot of companies and non-company employers (governments...) which will be equally sensitive about posting code. Second, even if it were true that most of the world's programmers do use Stack Exchange, why do they have to? It's a company that's barely 10 years old. It's a site that's notorious for closing question as off topic. Surely there are other resources. Surely other sites could pop up. I specifically mentioned "established" churches because it is no such thing - it's popular because people want to use it, not because anyone is obligated to. If people want to use something else, or nothing at all, they can. If someone figures out how to disrupt Stack Exchange, nobody is stopping them. "Crime" is a term that applies to violations of rules set by the government, which you are obligated to follow - it does not apply to violations of rules set by private parties. Finally, the policies in question were applied in this instance to a moderator, not a user. I don't believe that most of the world's programmers have to be a moderator. (And, again, given that StackOverflow is notorious for editing questions to make them more generally useful even at the risk of making the question useless for the individual asker, I assume they would at most rephrase the question to be policy-compliant instead of banning the user.)
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> their culture is stupid and alienating to many intelligent people We grant private organisations wide latitude to set their norms. Seemingly stupid norms can develop into, or inspire, sensible ones. Alternatively, they can illustrate the deficiencies of the norm. I’m arguing against automatically branding this as stupid. I don’t agree with the norm, as a frequent user of the singular “they”. But there isn’t a clear right answer to the question, and that means diverging solutions deserve at least the respect of being explored. (I would be more pointed if this were a government agency or company firing someone for not following this communication policy.)
- herostratus101 7y ago
  Stack Exchange is the closest thing there is to a utility in terms of technology Q&A sites. I find it pretty disturbing to see websites like this become so overtly political.
maire 7y ago
I don't think anyone thinks SE violated the law. The point is they are a useful organization that many people use. The policy is causing their target audience to question the usefulness and try to find alternatives. I am curious about the alternatives. My problem with the policy is the cognative load that the policy puts on the moderators given that most people want to be judged for their ideas rather than their gender.

What's the point of noting that they have the right to do this? Was anyone arguing that SE violated the law? Their culture is stupid and alienating to many intelligent people.

geofft 7y ago

Because the comment at the top of this thread uses the phrase "punish that assumed thought crime." It's just a disagreement of values. I'm not going to hire a Catholic to be a pastor at my Lutheran church, but that doesn't mean I think that Catholics are committing thoughtcrime. (Despite the historical fact that many Lutherans and many Catholics did go to war for disagreeing with each other thoughts.)

herostratus101 7y ago
You really can't grasp the differences between a technology site that's used by practically every software developer and a church?
- geofft 7y ago
  True, I've never heard of an official state established Q&A site. So there's even less danger of state suppression of rights in the case of the technology site.
  - herostratus101 7y ago
    Unlike a church, most of the world's programmers have to use Stack Exchange in some capacity and abide by its policies. You're being obtuse.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - geofft 7y ago
      Huh? Why? I mean, first, I'm surprised at the implicit claim that most of the world's programmers do use Stack Exchange and abide by its policies. I don't have a Stack Exchange account. I occasionally run across it in Google searches, but I don't have to abide by any policies to read a website. And my company (which is in a regulated industry and is IP-sensitive) prohibits us from posting detailed information about our work externally without review by the security team, so I assume most (I certainly don't assume all) of my coworkers don't post to Stack Exchange from work / about their work. I can't remember the last time I heard a coworker (here or at a previous employer) say "I asked StackOverflow and they said....". There are a lot of companies and non-company employers (governments...) which will be equally sensitive about posting code. Second, even if it were true that most of the world's programmers do use Stack Exchange, why do they have to? It's a company that's barely 10 years old. It's a site that's notorious for closing question as off topic. Surely there are other resources. Surely other sites could pop up. I specifically mentioned "established" churches because it is no such thing - it's popular because people want to use it, not because anyone is obligated to. If people want to use something else, or nothing at all, they can. If someone figures out how to disrupt Stack Exchange, nobody is stopping them. "Crime" is a term that applies to violations of rules set by the government, which you are obligated to follow - it does not apply to violations of rules set by private parties. Finally, the policies in question were applied in this instance to a moderator, not a user. I don't believe that most of the world's programmers have to be a moderator. (And, again, given that StackOverflow is notorious for editing questions to make them more generally useful even at the risk of making the question useless for the individual asker, I assume they would at most rephrase the question to be policy-compliant instead of banning the user.)

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> their culture is stupid and alienating to many intelligent people We grant private organisations wide latitude to set their norms. Seemingly stupid norms can develop into, or inspire, sensible ones. Alternatively, they can illustrate the deficiencies of the norm. I’m arguing against automatically branding this as stupid. I don’t agree with the norm, as a frequent user of the singular “they”. But there isn’t a clear right answer to the question, and that means diverging solutions deserve at least the respect of being explored. (I would be more pointed if this were a government agency or company firing someone for not following this communication policy.)

herostratus101 7y ago
Stack Exchange is the closest thing there is to a utility in terms of technology Q&A sites. I find it pretty disturbing to see websites like this become so overtly political.

maire 7y ago

I don't think anyone thinks SE violated the law. The point is they are a useful organization that many people use. The policy is causing their target audience to question the usefulness and try to find alternatives. I am curious about the alternatives. My problem with the policy is the cognative load that the policy puts on the moderators given that most people want to be judged for their ideas rather than their gender.