6 ms·

General Advice: Stay away from people who think they can "fix" human behavior with rules and laws, Code of Conducts are no exception to this. Edit: "Mediation

General Advice: Stay away from people who think they can "fix" human behavior with rules and laws, Code of Conducts are no exception to this. Edit: "Mediation by courts" is the secret ingredient. Without a fair court, law (and by implication, Code of Conducts) are just a methods of fortifying the ruling peoples power.

charcircuit 5y ago
What if instead of fixing people you just kick them out of your community? I think this is the point of CoCs. Obviously doing this has pros and cons.
- crt1032 5y ago
  The point of CoCs is to have a ruling class, often parasitical, that enforces double standards. Occasionally they try to kick out someone to cement their power. If you want to see how vicious they are, here is an account: https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ Do realize that most victims do not dare to go public but accept the humiliation.
  - stackedinserter 5y ago
    > Code of Conducts can be a useful tool, when thoughtfully created and thoughtfully enforced, to address sexism, racism, and harassment, all of which have been problems at tech conferences. This guy is a part of the problem.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    CoC are what you make of them. Just like you can use bitcoin for good and for evil, so you can do with CoC.
ungamedplayer 5y ago
Careful, you are dangerously close to logic there.
- pantulis 5y ago
  I don't really agree with the statement that they are trying to fix human behaviour. There's nothing wrong with Vivaldi stating "this is my house, these are my rules", they are not the government.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Yeah there is. A world where everything is someone's house and they get to make the rules is not a world of freedom.
    - Pxtl 5y ago
      Nobody owes you the right to use their megaphone. Demanding that the government enforce your right to use their platform as a vessel for your opinion seems every bit as bad as the government silencing you. Forced speech is no better than forced silence.
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        >Nobody owes you the right to use their megaphone. Please, let's not switch metaphors. It's not a megaphone, it's a house. > Demanding that the government enforce your right The government is the one who makes the "house" into private property in the first place. Democracy and freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if there's nowhere to speak. If you don't have an actual power to speak _including_ all material prerequisites of communication, then how are you a citizen? Why should you accept liberal democracy?
        Pxtl 5y ago
        That analogy falls over because IRL we have public, government-owned property where there is no private owner. The sidewalk in front of your house is only owned by the government, it is nobody's "house". The internet lacks this because we have no government infrastructure that directly hosts messages. There is no internet equivalent to standing on a street-corner with a sign, using only the tools of communication that you own, in a public space. If I run an offensive protest inside of a mall, I will be asked to leave and ultimately thrown out. In this sense, Facebook is the digital equivalent to the mall - they own the space. The difference is that there is no street in front of the mall I could use instead. Even if I set up my own server, I will have to connect it to my privately-owned ISP, install it at a privately-owned datacentre. That, to me, is the only real difference. The internet has no spaces that aren't somebody's house, unlike meatspace. But imho, the solution is to create public spaces on the internet, not to demand that private spaces become public ones against their will.
ineedasername 5y ago
I'm responding to the general sentiment, not the Vivaldi case in particular: This seems an extreme opinion, to think that penalties for criminal acts don't have some type of deterrence effect. And even if deterrence is minimal, a rule or law that simply make repeat offense impossible seems to be a reasonable approach to dealing with things (you can't rob a bank in prison)
- blueflow 5y ago
  "Mediation by courts" is the secret ingredient. Without a fair court, law (and by implication, Code of Conducts) are just a methods of fortifying the ruling peoples power.
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    If you do feel unjustly treated, no rule stops you from referring your complaint as a civil case before a public court of law as a private citizen. That's exactly what has been happening over the past decades: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bia...
    - stinkytaco 5y ago
      Don't many services require you to waive your rights to sue, instead directing disputed to private mediation?
      - CaptArmchair 5y ago
        Waiving your rights to sue often comes down to an defining an exemption from liability. It means that you can start a civil lawsuit, but that the court will find the exemption enforcable. Typically, you'll find such waivers on playgrounds, theme parks, public venues and such where the venue can be exempt from liability in case of injury through negligence. Just because you signed a waiver doesn't mean you don't have a case. The court might find that the waiver is trumped by violations in public policy, or it ends up being entered with the intention of effecting an illegal or amoral agreement. In the U.S., such waivers aren't necessary since digital services are well protected by Section 230 providing immunity from liability for providers of an "interactive computer service" who publishes information provided by a third party. The majority of the cases in that Verge article was lost by the plaintiffs over Section 230. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 A typical argument used by opponents of these services is "freedom of speech" and "censorship". Legally speaking, these only apply in the relationship between the state and members of the public. It means being prosecuted and getting convicted for something you said. A landmark case here is "New York Times Co. v. United States" in which SCOTUS allowed newspapers to publish the then-classified pentagon papers under First Amendment right without censorship or punishment by the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S... These do NOT apply when it comes to civil lawsuits between private citizens and private legal entities. When you get banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vivaldi's e-mail service, none of your constitutional rights where violated. You weren't thrown in prison or convicted by a judge. All that happened was a private service cutting you off. It's the exact equivalent of a host of a private party having security escort you to the exit. Property laws and constitutional laws give the host legal backing to do exactly that. Banning people from digital services is merely an extension here. Lawmakers in Florida and Texas, though, are currently trying passed laws which would which makes banning people from digital services "based on their viewpoints" illegal. The idea is to undermine the fundamental laws and rights you have. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-media-law-hb-20-signed-greg-abbott https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-medi... In Florida, that law has already been blocked by a judge pointing out inherent inequalities through exemptions, and the fact that it directly challenges federal law - Section 230 - as well as the First Amendment. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-media-law-hb-20-signed-greg-abbott https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-medi... Complex as all of this may sound, it's really simple though. You are a private individual engaging in the market place between competing e-mail providers. You are not forced by a governement or the state to use a particular service. If you disagree with the terms of service from a particular provider: don't use that provider. You are even entirely free to start your own e-mail service if you wish to do so. That's what you have. So, what's the problem then? Well, what about markets where consolidation has led to a monopoly of a handful of players? What about social media markets where you're compelled to use Facebook or Twitter because your entire social network exclusively communicates through the infrastructure of these private entities? Getting banned from those has a severe impact on a private citizens life, right? Here things become hairy. There's a difference between your legal freedoms and rights you have, and the de facto affordances provided by the marketplace or the commons to actually enforce them as a private citizen e.g. consumer choice, fair pricing, etc. It's very hard to prove that the existence of a monopoly is violating your legal or constitutional rights as a private individual. (Again, all of this pertains to the relationship between private persons and private legal entities. Not a public government!) Private monopolies tend to thrive where there are gaps in a legal framework which ensures that private citizens don't end up at a disadvantage in the marketplace. That's where the legislative branch of government ought to come in to assert that the marketplace isn't behaving in a way which benefits the citizen represented by that government, and take affirmative action through new legislation. That's why Big Tech was brought before several Congressional hearings earlier this year. Personally, I feel that the freedom to ban people from a community is a fundamental necessity to keep that community healthy. On a basic human level, there's no point in having people who can't go through the same door confront each other over and over again. However, I do feel there's a major public issue when a ban ends up in de facto ostracizing of members of the public because the entirety of society - millions of people - have become secluded in digital walled gardens. Even though I fundamentally disagree with the views others may harbor, this level of centralization, well, that's not the kind of Internet I'm okay with.
blackoil 5y ago
All rules and laws would come under this. You'll have to shun society to follow this advice.
- blueflow 5y ago
  I appended a clarification because it was unclear to some people.
Pxtl 5y ago
8kun demonstrates the endgame of libertarian theories about social media. Conspiracy theories, racism, and calls to violence run rampant, ultimately leading to a dangerous political cult and violent attacks. Yeah, we tried unregulated free speech on social media. Didn't work.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  That's one particular social group that has free speech. It isn't the only one.
- slightwinder 5y ago
  Conspiracy theories, racism, and calls to violence happened already long before computers even existed. We have whole wars which were fueled by this.
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Thanks for illustrating the problem: a largely unknown & uninvolved person paints half the population in a viciously negative light, decries normal discourse of diverse views as “unregulated”, and by implication seeks to censor those holding views not shared by the self-appointed “fact checker”.
- ok123456 5y ago
  8kun only exists in that form because of the arbitrary enforcement of "Community Guidelines" elsewhere. 8kun isn't an example of 'unregulated free speech' not working; it's an example of the externalities of trying to regulate free speech on social media. Trying to 'fact check' your uncle who thinks the 2020 election was rigged forced him off that platform and onto another without those constraints. In that process, he's being exposed to even worse points of view.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    I mentioned 8kun (and, implicitly, Q) because it's an English language example that should be familiar to the hackernews audience. Outside of the English-speaking world, the mainstream social media platforms are far less moderated. So we have a place where we can test your theory, it's not hypothetical! Result: Race-riots in Sri Lanka, anti-refugee violence in Germany, Rohingyan genocide in Myanmar, all fueled by disinformation on Facebook and organized on Facebook. Uncontrolled social media creates a fact-free environment where the worst conspiracy theories and ethnic hatred spread like wildfire. Truth matters.
fortran77 5y ago
I was once going to give a talk on learning a specific programming language and framework at an event. My sample app was a "calorie counter / dieting app". I was told at the last minute I needed to redo my example because it violates the code of conduct about discriminating against "people of size" and may be upsetting to people with "eating disorders" I didn't even respond. I just stopped responding to their requests and didn't show up. Codes of Conduct are used as blunt instruments now, and aren't useful.
- ok123456 5y ago
  You could have just shown up with a kilo-joule counter.
- mrkentutbabi 5y ago
  You aren't woke enough, thats a problem.

charcircuit 5y ago

What if instead of fixing people you just kick them out of your community? I think this is the point of CoCs. Obviously doing this has pros and cons.

crt1032 5y ago
The point of CoCs is to have a ruling class, often parasitical, that enforces double standards. Occasionally they try to kick out someone to cement their power. If you want to see how vicious they are, here is an account: https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ Do realize that most victims do not dare to go public but accept the humiliation.
- stackedinserter 5y ago
  > Code of Conducts can be a useful tool, when thoughtfully created and thoughtfully enforced, to address sexism, racism, and harassment, all of which have been problems at tech conferences. This guy is a part of the problem.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  CoC are what you make of them. Just like you can use bitcoin for good and for evil, so you can do with CoC.

ungamedplayer 5y ago

Careful, you are dangerously close to logic there.

pantulis 5y ago
I don't really agree with the statement that they are trying to fix human behaviour. There's nothing wrong with Vivaldi stating "this is my house, these are my rules", they are not the government.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Yeah there is. A world where everything is someone's house and they get to make the rules is not a world of freedom.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    Nobody owes you the right to use their megaphone. Demanding that the government enforce your right to use their platform as a vessel for your opinion seems every bit as bad as the government silencing you. Forced speech is no better than forced silence.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      >Nobody owes you the right to use their megaphone. Please, let's not switch metaphors. It's not a megaphone, it's a house. > Demanding that the government enforce your right The government is the one who makes the "house" into private property in the first place. Democracy and freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if there's nowhere to speak. If you don't have an actual power to speak _including_ all material prerequisites of communication, then how are you a citizen? Why should you accept liberal democracy?
      - Pxtl 5y ago
        That analogy falls over because IRL we have public, government-owned property where there is no private owner. The sidewalk in front of your house is only owned by the government, it is nobody's "house". The internet lacks this because we have no government infrastructure that directly hosts messages. There is no internet equivalent to standing on a street-corner with a sign, using only the tools of communication that you own, in a public space. If I run an offensive protest inside of a mall, I will be asked to leave and ultimately thrown out. In this sense, Facebook is the digital equivalent to the mall - they own the space. The difference is that there is no street in front of the mall I could use instead. Even if I set up my own server, I will have to connect it to my privately-owned ISP, install it at a privately-owned datacentre. That, to me, is the only real difference. The internet has no spaces that aren't somebody's house, unlike meatspace. But imho, the solution is to create public spaces on the internet, not to demand that private spaces become public ones against their will.

ineedasername 5y ago

I'm responding to the general sentiment, not the Vivaldi case in particular: This seems an extreme opinion, to think that penalties for criminal acts don't have some type of deterrence effect. And even if deterrence is minimal, a rule or law that simply make repeat offense impossible seems to be a reasonable approach to dealing with things (you can't rob a bank in prison)

blueflow 5y ago
"Mediation by courts" is the secret ingredient. Without a fair court, law (and by implication, Code of Conducts) are just a methods of fortifying the ruling peoples power.
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  If you do feel unjustly treated, no rule stops you from referring your complaint as a civil case before a public court of law as a private citizen. That's exactly what has been happening over the past decades: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bia...
  - stinkytaco 5y ago
    Don't many services require you to waive your rights to sue, instead directing disputed to private mediation?
    - CaptArmchair 5y ago
      Waiving your rights to sue often comes down to an defining an exemption from liability. It means that you can start a civil lawsuit, but that the court will find the exemption enforcable. Typically, you'll find such waivers on playgrounds, theme parks, public venues and such where the venue can be exempt from liability in case of injury through negligence. Just because you signed a waiver doesn't mean you don't have a case. The court might find that the waiver is trumped by violations in public policy, or it ends up being entered with the intention of effecting an illegal or amoral agreement. In the U.S., such waivers aren't necessary since digital services are well protected by Section 230 providing immunity from liability for providers of an "interactive computer service" who publishes information provided by a third party. The majority of the cases in that Verge article was lost by the plaintiffs over Section 230. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 A typical argument used by opponents of these services is "freedom of speech" and "censorship". Legally speaking, these only apply in the relationship between the state and members of the public. It means being prosecuted and getting convicted for something you said. A landmark case here is "New York Times Co. v. United States" in which SCOTUS allowed newspapers to publish the then-classified pentagon papers under First Amendment right without censorship or punishment by the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S... These do NOT apply when it comes to civil lawsuits between private citizens and private legal entities. When you get banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vivaldi's e-mail service, none of your constitutional rights where violated. You weren't thrown in prison or convicted by a judge. All that happened was a private service cutting you off. It's the exact equivalent of a host of a private party having security escort you to the exit. Property laws and constitutional laws give the host legal backing to do exactly that. Banning people from digital services is merely an extension here. Lawmakers in Florida and Texas, though, are currently trying passed laws which would which makes banning people from digital services "based on their viewpoints" illegal. The idea is to undermine the fundamental laws and rights you have. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-media-law-hb-20-signed-greg-abbott https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-medi... In Florida, that law has already been blocked by a judge pointing out inherent inequalities through exemptions, and the fact that it directly challenges federal law - Section 230 - as well as the First Amendment. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-media-law-hb-20-signed-greg-abbott https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-medi... Complex as all of this may sound, it's really simple though. You are a private individual engaging in the market place between competing e-mail providers. You are not forced by a governement or the state to use a particular service. If you disagree with the terms of service from a particular provider: don't use that provider. You are even entirely free to start your own e-mail service if you wish to do so. That's what you have. So, what's the problem then? Well, what about markets where consolidation has led to a monopoly of a handful of players? What about social media markets where you're compelled to use Facebook or Twitter because your entire social network exclusively communicates through the infrastructure of these private entities? Getting banned from those has a severe impact on a private citizens life, right? Here things become hairy. There's a difference between your legal freedoms and rights you have, and the de facto affordances provided by the marketplace or the commons to actually enforce them as a private citizen e.g. consumer choice, fair pricing, etc. It's very hard to prove that the existence of a monopoly is violating your legal or constitutional rights as a private individual. (Again, all of this pertains to the relationship between private persons and private legal entities. Not a public government!) Private monopolies tend to thrive where there are gaps in a legal framework which ensures that private citizens don't end up at a disadvantage in the marketplace. That's where the legislative branch of government ought to come in to assert that the marketplace isn't behaving in a way which benefits the citizen represented by that government, and take affirmative action through new legislation. That's why Big Tech was brought before several Congressional hearings earlier this year. Personally, I feel that the freedom to ban people from a community is a fundamental necessity to keep that community healthy. On a basic human level, there's no point in having people who can't go through the same door confront each other over and over again. However, I do feel there's a major public issue when a ban ends up in de facto ostracizing of members of the public because the entirety of society - millions of people - have become secluded in digital walled gardens. Even though I fundamentally disagree with the views others may harbor, this level of centralization, well, that's not the kind of Internet I'm okay with.

blackoil 5y ago

All rules and laws would come under this. You'll have to shun society to follow this advice.

blueflow 5y ago
I appended a clarification because it was unclear to some people.

Pxtl 5y ago

8kun demonstrates the endgame of libertarian theories about social media. Conspiracy theories, racism, and calls to violence run rampant, ultimately leading to a dangerous political cult and violent attacks. Yeah, we tried unregulated free speech on social media. Didn't work.

DarylZero 5y ago
That's one particular social group that has free speech. It isn't the only one.
slightwinder 5y ago
Conspiracy theories, racism, and calls to violence happened already long before computers even existed. We have whole wars which were fueled by this.
ctdonath 5y ago
Thanks for illustrating the problem: a largely unknown & uninvolved person paints half the population in a viciously negative light, decries normal discourse of diverse views as “unregulated”, and by implication seeks to censor those holding views not shared by the self-appointed “fact checker”.
ok123456 5y ago
8kun only exists in that form because of the arbitrary enforcement of "Community Guidelines" elsewhere. 8kun isn't an example of 'unregulated free speech' not working; it's an example of the externalities of trying to regulate free speech on social media. Trying to 'fact check' your uncle who thinks the 2020 election was rigged forced him off that platform and onto another without those constraints. In that process, he's being exposed to even worse points of view.
- Pxtl 5y ago
  I mentioned 8kun (and, implicitly, Q) because it's an English language example that should be familiar to the hackernews audience. Outside of the English-speaking world, the mainstream social media platforms are far less moderated. So we have a place where we can test your theory, it's not hypothetical! Result: Race-riots in Sri Lanka, anti-refugee violence in Germany, Rohingyan genocide in Myanmar, all fueled by disinformation on Facebook and organized on Facebook. Uncontrolled social media creates a fact-free environment where the worst conspiracy theories and ethnic hatred spread like wildfire. Truth matters.

fortran77 5y ago

I was once going to give a talk on learning a specific programming language and framework at an event. My sample app was a "calorie counter / dieting app". I was told at the last minute I needed to redo my example because it violates the code of conduct about discriminating against "people of size" and may be upsetting to people with "eating disorders" I didn't even respond. I just stopped responding to their requests and didn't show up. Codes of Conduct are used as blunt instruments now, and aren't useful.

ok123456 5y ago
You could have just shown up with a kilo-joule counter.
mrkentutbabi 5y ago
You aren't woke enough, thats a problem.