4 ms·

> Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significan

> Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don't give in to criminals or bullies. Intimidation is bad (and this fact should not need to be stated). But… this is otherwise absolutely terrible. If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process. I am vehemently against this proposal, and my reasons have nothing to do with criminality. Tarring all opposition as criminals is a really shitty tactic and is pretty obviously done in bad faith.

rbyers 3y ago
I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that I "tarred all opposition as criminals". Still I admit my wording could have been better, please see follow-up: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_kGO22g/m/leSEYvIIAgAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_.... > If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process. Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse?
- drewbug01 3y ago
  > I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that I "tarred all opposition as criminals". Still I admit my wording could have been better, please see follow-up It is not disingenuous, it is a plain reading of the words written and it seems I am not the only one who read it in the same way. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts further; that seems like a prudent course of action. However, labeling a comment as “disingenuous” is somewhat concerning to me. That particular label is typically used when one is trying to suggest that the labeled comment is somehow deceptive. From Merriam Webster’s “Did You Know?” section: > A disingenuous remark might contain some superficial truth, but it is delivered with the intent to deceive or to serve some hidden purpose. If that is indeed how you intended to use “disingenuous,” I would note that it serves to undercut any utility your clarification might have served. I’m concerned you’re very primed to view everything around this as highly suspicious and that those involved have ulterior motives. Speaking as one internet nerd to another: take a break, go for a walk, clear your mind. > Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse? Frankly, I don’t see how that matters at all. If you want to make an appeal to authority like that, go ahead - but it’s fairly transparent and I’m not otherwise inclined to engage with it except to say: your team is proposing to dramatically change the internet, which is a concern that extends far beyond your team and your place of employment. Making this all about your team reads as a way to shut down feedback you don’t like under the guise of “abuse.” Your intentions are almost besides the point: as your clarification notes, your employer has burned up just about all trust with the community at this point. If you have a legitimate concern about threats of physical abuse, I would suggest that there are perhaps other avenues to deal with it other than “ignore all feedback from GitHub.” For starters, I’m fairly certain that’s against their terms of service and code of conduct.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  >> If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process. > Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse? See this, right here, is exactly the problem: Yes, threats of physical abuse are unacceptable. Nobody here is saying otherwise. Pretending that the presence of unacceptable threats somehow invalidates legitimate criticism, however, just makes you look dishonest.
pg_1234 3y ago
Not so long ago another autocratic power declared anything it didn't like to be criminal, i.e.: - Jewish physicians were de-certified, and were no longer allowed to treat German patients. - Jews were not allowed to own gardens. - All Jewish-named streets in Germany were renamed. - Jews were prohibited from cinemas, the opera, and concerts. - Jewish children were banned from public schools. ... it didn't go well for everyone. P.S. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law ;-)
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]

rbyers 3y ago

I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that I "tarred all opposition as criminals". Still I admit my wording could have been better, please see follow-up: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_kGO22g/m/leSEYvIIAgAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_.... > If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process. Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse?

drewbug01 3y ago
> I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that I "tarred all opposition as criminals". Still I admit my wording could have been better, please see follow-up It is not disingenuous, it is a plain reading of the words written and it seems I am not the only one who read it in the same way. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts further; that seems like a prudent course of action. However, labeling a comment as “disingenuous” is somewhat concerning to me. That particular label is typically used when one is trying to suggest that the labeled comment is somehow deceptive. From Merriam Webster’s “Did You Know?” section: > A disingenuous remark might contain some superficial truth, but it is delivered with the intent to deceive or to serve some hidden purpose. If that is indeed how you intended to use “disingenuous,” I would note that it serves to undercut any utility your clarification might have served. I’m concerned you’re very primed to view everything around this as highly suspicious and that those involved have ulterior motives. Speaking as one internet nerd to another: take a break, go for a walk, clear your mind. > Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse? Frankly, I don’t see how that matters at all. If you want to make an appeal to authority like that, go ahead - but it’s fairly transparent and I’m not otherwise inclined to engage with it except to say: your team is proposing to dramatically change the internet, which is a concern that extends far beyond your team and your place of employment. Making this all about your team reads as a way to shut down feedback you don’t like under the guise of “abuse.” Your intentions are almost besides the point: as your clarification notes, your employer has burned up just about all trust with the community at this point. If you have a legitimate concern about threats of physical abuse, I would suggest that there are perhaps other avenues to deal with it other than “ignore all feedback from GitHub.” For starters, I’m fairly certain that’s against their terms of service and code of conduct.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
>> If he can’t differentiate between “negative feedback, delivered abusively” and “negative feedback, delivered forcefully” then he should not be someone involved in this decision-making process. > Have you ever managed a large team of people? If so, do you think a good manager would really tell people that part of their job is to accept threats of physical abuse? See this, right here, is exactly the problem: Yes, threats of physical abuse are unacceptable. Nobody here is saying otherwise. Pretending that the presence of unacceptable threats somehow invalidates legitimate criticism, however, just makes you look dishonest.

pg_1234 3y ago

Not so long ago another autocratic power declared anything it didn't like to be criminal, i.e.: - Jewish physicians were de-certified, and were no longer allowed to treat German patients. - Jews were not allowed to own gardens. - All Jewish-named streets in Germany were renamed. - Jews were prohibited from cinemas, the opera, and concerts. - Jewish children were banned from public schools. ... it didn't go well for everyone. P.S. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law ;-)

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]