After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 28, 2018 6:59 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
In reply to: After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker) by anselm
Parent article: After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

If articulating the value system of the community is the goal, then a *code* of conduct is a rather imperfect mechanism. A code fixes specific behaviors, but not the reasons for them.

I think a declaration of principles would be more adequate. Universal Declaration of Hacker Rights anyone? (sounds like a job ESR would love).

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 28, 2018 11:21 UTC (Fri) by codeofdrama (guest, #127444) [Link] (2 responses)

It's not exactly a UDHR, but as an intellectual exercise, I've been thinking about what useful rights a social contract might contain.

Of the rights I've come up with, the unifying theme is tolerance. Practically this means that the powers-that-be (owners, moderators, etc.) won't ban/moderate people for the sole reason of exercising one or more of the rights, even though the powers-that-be might have the formal right to ban/moderate anyone for any reason whatsoever.

A simple example could be: A participant has the right to use Oxford spelling.

Where it gets interesting is when people self-select out of a community because they find a right intolerable.

I see these sort of rights as a supplement to compelled, and prohibited behaviour in describing the boundaries of social interaction.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 28, 2018 16:25 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (1 responses)

The important thing about tolerance as a value that is constantly and loudly misunderstood by many is that is is a two party contract, I tolerate you as long as you tolerate me, if one person fails in that by being intolerant then they no longer earn tolerance. Without that understanding then calls for tolerance just becomes another tool for the socially powerful to dominate, where they demand tolerance for themselves and their behavior but are unwilling to extend that courtesy to others. So it isn't so much that you have a "right" to have others tolerate your behavior, its that you can earn tolerance by how well you tolerate and treat others.

After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)

Posted Sep 30, 2018 4:27 UTC (Sun) by koenkooi (subscriber, #71861) [Link]

Also known as Popper's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance