3 ms·

Ironically this “real email” policy (was not aware of this btw) is just as unenforceable as a blanket no-LLM policy. Is “joeschmoe354266@icloud.com” your real e

Ironically this “real email” policy (was not aware of this btw) is just as unenforceable as a blanket no-LLM policy. Is “joeschmoe354266@icloud.com” your real email or not, and how do you prove it? I don’t even use LLMs, but these puritanical stands are a real turn-off. I got into FOSS because I don’t want anyone telling me what to do, not so I can be the one who tells other people what to do.

LoganDark 2mo ago
I was a bit turned off by Drew's constant talk about "real humans" while I was in discussion with him. He seems to have certain ideas about how he wants his world to work, and while I don't fault him for that on its own, the way he talks about it and pushes it on others feels very exclusive. He says it's just culture, and that it's my responsibility to figure out how to conform to it. I've never really felt part of human culture, and it sucks to be turned away over things like this. All the places where I've fit in have shut down or sold out.
- iamnothere 2mo ago
  I feel the same way. There’s a big chunk of the FOSS community that has dedicated itself to the cultural left “omnicause,” which seems to require full agreement with the consensus as one of its membership criteria. The thing is, even though I agree with many (but not all) of its tenets on paper, I don’t really agree with the methods used or the insistence on full agreement. I also just despise ordinary politicking, and prefer slow procedure-driven decision making (like Debian) or projects driven by a visionary leader (like OpenBSD). This makes me an outsider by default. Projects that attract these people tend to engage in vicious struggle sessions any time there’s a serious disagreement. I think the biggest schism I have with these people is over identity. I prefer to have no identity. Anonymous (or pseudonymous), faceless. They want to enforce a strong identity, even if it’s a constructed identity. It can’t just be about trust, given how often identifiable people break each others’ trust. I suspect it’s about enforcing ingroup signaling as a criteria of membership, in order to make the group look stronger and drive out dissenters.
  - LoganDark 2mo ago
    > I think the biggest schism I have with these people is over identity. I prefer to have no identity. Anonymous (or pseudonymous), faceless. Same here. I don't even have just one identity in the first place (thanks to DID), but not a single one identifies as a "real human". I suspect these people have some sort of idea of what constitutes a "real human" to them, and in this case it seems to be making a full canonical identity directly available. I don't do that; my life (and brain) is incredibly compartmentalized and I don't use the body's likeness online, nor do I make my personal email address available to the public, so even if I did identify with humanity I feel like I would probably still not be "real human" enough.
    - iamnothere 2mo ago
      > I suspect these people have some sort of idea of what constitutes a "real human" to them, and in this case it seems to be making a full canonical identity directly available. That’s a great point. They want to be able to dig through your history to make sure that you’re co-aligned, and maybe to find something they can use if they need to influence or target you. To that I say, no thanks.
      - LoganDark 2mo ago
        In my discussion with Drew, it was framed as an issue of trust: "You've set yourself up in a position of not trusting your peers. They offer you this courtesy, but you deny it to them." To me, whether or not to trust others is a purely individual decision. If others choose to be trusting, that is their choice. It is likewise my choice not to give out trust so freely, and somehow that is treated as selfish and unfair. I want to contribute my thoughts and work to the community, but apparently, I am not trusting enough to be a part of it. I choose to support the inverse; that is, I will explicitly tell others that they have no need to trust me whatsoever. I try to make arguments, contribute work and generally conduct myself in such a way that any merit is self-evident, and that there is no need to trust me. It is not an issue when someone does, of course, but there is certainly an issue when they try to demand my trust in return. In my opinion, we live in a dystopia, and we should generally strive towards protocols and "cultures" that do not demand so much "trust". If full trust is required to participate, you will suffer from bad actors that pretend to trust, while excluding honest actors who do not. The same problem exists with things like ID verification, because bad actors have access to unlimited IDs, while honest people may not have access to, or be willing to surrender, any at all.

LoganDark 2mo ago

I was a bit turned off by Drew's constant talk about "real humans" while I was in discussion with him. He seems to have certain ideas about how he wants his world to work, and while I don't fault him for that on its own, the way he talks about it and pushes it on others feels very exclusive. He says it's just culture, and that it's my responsibility to figure out how to conform to it. I've never really felt part of human culture, and it sucks to be turned away over things like this. All the places where I've fit in have shut down or sold out.

iamnothere 2mo ago
I feel the same way. There’s a big chunk of the FOSS community that has dedicated itself to the cultural left “omnicause,” which seems to require full agreement with the consensus as one of its membership criteria. The thing is, even though I agree with many (but not all) of its tenets on paper, I don’t really agree with the methods used or the insistence on full agreement. I also just despise ordinary politicking, and prefer slow procedure-driven decision making (like Debian) or projects driven by a visionary leader (like OpenBSD). This makes me an outsider by default. Projects that attract these people tend to engage in vicious struggle sessions any time there’s a serious disagreement. I think the biggest schism I have with these people is over identity. I prefer to have no identity. Anonymous (or pseudonymous), faceless. They want to enforce a strong identity, even if it’s a constructed identity. It can’t just be about trust, given how often identifiable people break each others’ trust. I suspect it’s about enforcing ingroup signaling as a criteria of membership, in order to make the group look stronger and drive out dissenters.
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  > I think the biggest schism I have with these people is over identity. I prefer to have no identity. Anonymous (or pseudonymous), faceless. Same here. I don't even have just one identity in the first place (thanks to DID), but not a single one identifies as a "real human". I suspect these people have some sort of idea of what constitutes a "real human" to them, and in this case it seems to be making a full canonical identity directly available. I don't do that; my life (and brain) is incredibly compartmentalized and I don't use the body's likeness online, nor do I make my personal email address available to the public, so even if I did identify with humanity I feel like I would probably still not be "real human" enough.
  - iamnothere 2mo ago
    > I suspect these people have some sort of idea of what constitutes a "real human" to them, and in this case it seems to be making a full canonical identity directly available. That’s a great point. They want to be able to dig through your history to make sure that you’re co-aligned, and maybe to find something they can use if they need to influence or target you. To that I say, no thanks.
    - LoganDark 2mo ago
      In my discussion with Drew, it was framed as an issue of trust: "You've set yourself up in a position of not trusting your peers. They offer you this courtesy, but you deny it to them." To me, whether or not to trust others is a purely individual decision. If others choose to be trusting, that is their choice. It is likewise my choice not to give out trust so freely, and somehow that is treated as selfish and unfair. I want to contribute my thoughts and work to the community, but apparently, I am not trusting enough to be a part of it. I choose to support the inverse; that is, I will explicitly tell others that they have no need to trust me whatsoever. I try to make arguments, contribute work and generally conduct myself in such a way that any merit is self-evident, and that there is no need to trust me. It is not an issue when someone does, of course, but there is certainly an issue when they try to demand my trust in return. In my opinion, we live in a dystopia, and we should generally strive towards protocols and "cultures" that do not demand so much "trust". If full trust is required to participate, you will suffer from bad actors that pretend to trust, while excluding honest actors who do not. The same problem exists with things like ID verification, because bad actors have access to unlimited IDs, while honest people may not have access to, or be willing to surrender, any at all.