4 ms·

If a ruling class or inner circle has already decided on a course of action, you rarely change anything with good discourse practices. CoCs are always protecti

by lqrtr 4y ago

If a ruling class or inner circle has already decided on a course of action, you rarely change anything with good discourse practices. CoCs are always protecting the inner circle and their opinions. In the early days of open source, flame wars were considered a legitimate way for voicing opinions. Now, in corporate controlled "open" source, the dominance hierarchy must be protected.

gtirloni 4y ago
> If a ruling class or inner circle has already decided on a course of action, you rarely change anything with good discourse practices. Quite true. Especially in the worksplace where RFC/design meetings are only done to validate what has already been decided. > CoCs are always protecting the inner circle and their opinions CoC are 99% not doing that. Of course people can abuse it but I don't see it in practice most of the time. It's just that the abuse/drama gets more attention. > In the early days of open source, flame wars were considered a legitimate way for voicing opinions Flame wars have always been discouraged. As soon as one starts, mods usually step in and shut it down. > Now, in corporate controlled "open" source, the dominance hierarchy must be protected. Yes, very few corporate-backed open source projects are truly open to collaboration, especially when it changes the feature set. If you want to submit bug reports, help users or a PR for a tiny bug, that's all good. In their defense, the employees of those companies do the most work so they get to decide. But they do benefit enormously from having the code open (something they very often forget).
acdha 4y ago
None of that is true in the absolute terms you used. Flame wars also drove away potential contributors and even if you weren’t personally involved they could sap your desire to participate or set negative reputations for an entire community. Similarly, codes of conduct are set by many groups as a way to be welcoming, letting prospective participants know that they’re not going to get flamed or hit on for trying to participate. Yes, some corporations might use moderation for ulterior reasons but that happens anyway – it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have cars because people will use them to commit crime.
bitwize 4y ago
Every Hundred Flowers Campaign is followed by an Anti-Rightist Campaign. Chairman Mao instituted the Hundred Flowers Campaign purportedly as a way to solicit community participation in building China's new communist society. The CCP assured everybody, hey, we're totally open to criticism, feel free to be open and honest, we could use your ideas for how to improve. The reality was made clear in the Anti-Rightist Campaign, in which critics of Mao's plan or regime were put on a list of those to be arrested as "rightists" and imprisoned or killed.

by lqrtr 4y ago

gtirloni 4y ago

> If a ruling class or inner circle has already decided on a course of action, you rarely change anything with good discourse practices. Quite true. Especially in the worksplace where RFC/design meetings are only done to validate what has already been decided. > CoCs are always protecting the inner circle and their opinions CoC are 99% not doing that. Of course people can abuse it but I don't see it in practice most of the time. It's just that the abuse/drama gets more attention. > In the early days of open source, flame wars were considered a legitimate way for voicing opinions Flame wars have always been discouraged. As soon as one starts, mods usually step in and shut it down. > Now, in corporate controlled "open" source, the dominance hierarchy must be protected. Yes, very few corporate-backed open source projects are truly open to collaboration, especially when it changes the feature set. If you want to submit bug reports, help users or a PR for a tiny bug, that's all good. In their defense, the employees of those companies do the most work so they get to decide. But they do benefit enormously from having the code open (something they very often forget).

acdha 4y ago

None of that is true in the absolute terms you used. Flame wars also drove away potential contributors and even if you weren’t personally involved they could sap your desire to participate or set negative reputations for an entire community. Similarly, codes of conduct are set by many groups as a way to be welcoming, letting prospective participants know that they’re not going to get flamed or hit on for trying to participate. Yes, some corporations might use moderation for ulterior reasons but that happens anyway – it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have cars because people will use them to commit crime.

bitwize 4y ago

Every Hundred Flowers Campaign is followed by an Anti-Rightist Campaign. Chairman Mao instituted the Hundred Flowers Campaign purportedly as a way to solicit community participation in building China's new communist society. The CCP assured everybody, hey, we're totally open to criticism, feel free to be open and honest, we could use your ideas for how to improve. The reality was made clear in the Anti-Rightist Campaign, in which critics of Mao's plan or regime were put on a list of those to be arrested as "rightists" and imprisoned or killed.