Tavern on the Meta

No, but it helps.

@JourneymanGeek Is that something you found out from a recent conversation?

Journeyman Geek

@terdon no. It was something I noticed and was working on before this dumpster fire

@terdon I'm pretty sure the people at SE aren't exactly thrilled with that either

there just might not be a clean way out that doesn't cause more harm in another way

@mag I guess that''s the difference. I don't see how any monetary harm to SE could possibly outweigh the real harm they've caused her.

I'm operating of the most steelmanned version of this whole situation by the way

Tinkeringbell

12:03 PM

→ 8 messages moved to Trashcan

So, "we can't apologize because we will be sued and have to lose money" isn't a good enough excuse for me. Not for a company that wishes to be held to a higher standard.

4

@Tinkeringbell thanks :)

Tinkeringbell

@terdon You're welcome XD

If we were to cast aspersions you could very easily read that as some of Sr. Management at SE are vindictive about the whole thing and don't care. But I think that's unfair to assume

@terdon I'm sure you can convince a board of directors of that stance

@mag I am not assuming that. I don't doubt that each individual is decent in their own way. But the collective organism of the company is not, at the moment.

Mark Amery

Is there any actual evidence known to anyone here that fear of lawsuits is a factor influencing the company away from apologising for or retracting things they've said about Monica?

I keep seeing the idea suggested but am yet to see any reason to think it's true

12:05 PM

@mag I'm sure I can't. But that would mean I'd file SE in the same folder where I keep FaceBook and other companies I don't want to be associated with in any way.

@MarkAmery what's the alternative?

And that hurts. It's like seeing your dear old friend become a heartles jerk.

@MarkAmery No. Only an SE statement to that effect would be a fact. But (irony) that in itself would be an admission of guilt.

@terdon in a sense, they always were (after taking VC money). It was just in their interest so far to be nice to us

@mag That they believe they did the right thing, this is just a sign of things to come, we can all expect to be publicly attacked whenever we do something the company doesn't like.

9

Unitato

12:06 PM

Hi

make no mistake the one and only goal of SE is to accrue shareholder value. Everything else is just accessory to that

@terdon that would be even more depressing wouldn't it?

@mag Not really. You can take VC money and still keep your ethics. if your VC doesn't let you, you need a different VC. Being a VC doesn't make you evil.

I can't read the TL, so I don't know the mood of the mod community right now but if that becomes prevailing sentiment I see a lot more then 10% leaving

@mag Well, yes. Which is why I am struggling to find a possible explanation for their stance that would be compatible with a company that cares for any moral standards at all.

Mark Amery

@mag Not wanting to break their new policy against public statements about people? Still believing their characterisation was reasonable? Being so pissed at Monica for not rolling over for them that now they won't give her an inch? Fear that Twitter progressives will think less of them if they show weakness when it comes to hurting wrongthinkers? There are plenty of other explanations.

12:07 PM

@mag VC?

Venture Capitalist

People who fund startups.

@MarkAmery most of what you said is not in contradiction to what I explained

AKA Vulture Capitalist

it's just the less charitable version of mine

@Raedwald I used to think so as well, but after spending a few years working in a startup, I've come to see that some are actually perfectly decent people. Not all, not by a long shot, but some actually even insist on being ethical.

12:10 PM

one thing that is blatantly true is that there is significantly less tolerance for not progressive enough tech companies. And that clashes with the fact that the software industry outside of the americas is a rather conservative space

John Dvorak

@terdon Is it a larger percentage than for lawyers?

@mag Yes. And I am fine with them being progressive. More than fine. But that isn't the (my) problem with them.

so in the sense that the new house rules are those of a progressive sillicon valley or NYC tech company that will probably continue. And with that comes the reality of deplatforming and canceling dissenters. That is not really seperable

I mean, I've actually sent out a GDPR request to see what data they have on me. Because I am scared of them.

@mag Fine, but none of that implies speaking to the press!

They have my home address because I was naive enough to be willing to wear swag with their logo. Do I need to move?

There is a greater-good type argument for throwing out and shaming people who don't agree with what you see as progress. I personally don't agree but the argument is internally consistent

12:14 PM

Will they be telling people where I live if I step out of line so I can be doxxed and attacked by extremists?

the thinking is that if not educate people out of their bigotry you can make it so socially devastating and inacceptable that people will stop out of fear, and that the outcome (people stopping) is worth more then the process

@terdon That is way too paranoid.

@Raedwald Is it?

Based on what?

Honest question, what do I see that would make me feel that they won't do this?

@mag which for sure doesn't seed resentment in any way, shape or form

They have a director who apparently likes going on podcasts, talking to the press and tweeting about people.

I trust the CMs, I know them. But I really am uncomfortable with the idea that SE knows where I live and my real name.

Not even where I live, they sent the swag to my parents' house which is even worse.

@mag Yeah, the old "the ends justify the means" argument. Not something that has ever been used by unsavory folks... :)

12:18 PM

I'm not trying to be facetious, it's the same concept as behind why you don't talk or argue with alt-righters and instead just remove them from the public

@mag Yeah, it is. That's the problem.

because the thinking is that marginalized people deserve a faster solution to the harm they're causing, and the people causing that harm don't deserve your time

You should talk and argue with them. As long as they (and you) can be civil about it. Otherwise, you are correctly accused of muffling dissenting opinions, they become martyrs and all you achieved is to make them stronger.

@JAD resentment by whom? You're not trying to convince anyone, you're trying to shame people into considering bigotry societally unviable to hold as a belief

@terdon you only make them stronger if you don't win. This tactic has worked remarkably well against a lot of hate groups in america, though

@mag ok. And they're going to silently roll over and agree with your stances? Or are they going to foster resentment about the shaming? I'd expect sides to become more and more entrenched instead

12:22 PM

@mag Really? Name one that has actually become weaker because its voice was silenced. All I see is them becoming stronger and stronger, buoyed by their claims that they're the underdogs and the "establishment" is trying to shut them down.

@mag not as well as you'd think, it's just entrenched them deeper in some areas

Don't get me wrong. I don't think there is a (good) solution here

the problem is that you can't break a whisper circle if you can't join it

The only way to deal with such people is to laugh them out of the room, not to try and gag them. You need to change society so that their views are met with the ridicule they deserve. Anything else makes them martyrs and stronger.

You might quench the behaviour. You won't supress the feelings

12:24 PM

I just submitted a GDPR request out of curiousity... Interestingly, there's a max processing time of a month on it...

Well the best solution is the hardest and most dangerous: engagement

and while quenching the behaviour might seem like a small victory, the feelings keep festering

but it's the most difficult all around

@Cerbrus Yeah, I sent mine a week ago.

@Mgetz Exactly.

Why isn't that automated?

12:25 PM

@Cerbrus Probably because there's loads of stuff spread out across multiple DBs.

it's very hard to actually create inclusion when exclusion is the order of the day...

Still, a developer could probably create a dump of a user's information within a day

So they have time to decide what to show you or not /s

Neo nazis want you to talk with them because that legitimises their statements and gives them additional venues in which to air them. They don't want to engage in any kind of honest debate. Better to talk about them, rather than with them. Better to talk to people moving towards their position. There is an event horizon beyond which people outside can not usefully engage.

@Raedwald The thing is, you can use that exact same argument with any group. Just replace neo nazis with liberals, dog lovers, cake haters, whatever.

12:26 PM

@Raedwald there are those within that circle but trust me, if you engage and create personal connections it bridges. Trying to argue with them and you've already lost

If you refuse to engage, you are legitimizing them: you let them say "See? They can't answer our arguments, we're right".

This demonization of the other, whatever the other may be, is precisely the problem of our society today.

In other words, there is no winning

@terdon No. Because those groups still accept the concept of a civil society and peaceful interaction.

Well if you write them off you're playing into their arguments of being unreasonable

@Raedwald trust me, its universal. It may not seem like it but it is

@Raedwald Not all. If we're sticking to politics, there are extremists on all sides and I don't see one as particularly better than the other. As soon as you refuse to engage with a group because you disagree with their ideas, you have sunk to their level.

12:29 PM

people are people, and people are tribal. Until you create cross tribe relations they won't even consider alternative viewpoints

And their ideas tend to be so ludicrous it is trivial to shoot them down. If we don't, it just makes it look like they're right.

@terdon Well, either everybody is an extremist, or there is some group that isn't extremist. I wonder which

@JAD what do you mean? Only the fringes of any group are extremists. I'm just saying that there are such fringes on all sides of the political spectrum.

@JAD everybody is an extremist to someone else

The muslim and black worlds see the KKK in the same light as ISIS

@terdon "there are extremists on all sides" is exactly one of their talking points: that they are just like any other political party or movement. They aren't. They do not accept the concept of politics as we usually consider it. In their grimdark present, all there is is war.

12:31 PM

@terdon Only the fringes of neo nazis are extremists? Only the fringes of ISIS?

I don't agree that all groups are equal in this respect

And while I don't think it's fair to judge groups by its extremists, but for that to be true, the extremists must be outliers, not the norm

@Raedwald But neither do the extremists on the other side.

otherwise that comparison breaks down

@JAD Those are already fringe groups of the larger religious or political trend to which they belong.

Neo-nazis are a fringe group of extreme-right wing political positions.

And extreme-right wing is already a fringe group of right-wing.

@terdon No. Except for some weird Stalinist Communists, all other political parties and movements mostly accept the concept of politics as we usually consider it: debate, persuasion, voting, a degree of tolerance of dissent.

And a debate with right-winged people would look entirely different than a debate with neo-nazis. Is what I'm trying to point out

12:35 PM

@Raedwald Why are you excepting them?

They are the other extreme.

Judging right-wing by neonazis is unfair. Judging neonazis by neonazis is

almost all human political structures are about power, and screwing over groups different than your own for personal or group gain

Yes. right wing is not the same as neo Nazi.

Of course not.

@terdon I've asked a question about that GDPR request processing time

12:37 PM

But, you know, I come from a country where as recently as 3 months ago, we had both an openly neo-nazi and an openly Stalinist party in parliament. So I don't see how I can ignore either fringe.

At least we kicked the neo-Nazis out in the last election.

You don't have to ignore the fringes, but judging the groups as equally bad just because of their fringes is unfair.

@JAD I am judging the fringes as equally bad, that's what I'm saying: that there are extremists on either side.

And the worst thing you can do with extremists is try to gag them: that only makes them stronger.

@terdon Shower them with puppies

That always works

Yeah, from orbit maybe... :)

Hmm, so there's two stances here: Debating with extremists is pointless. Gagging/ignoring extremists is pointless. :/

12:42 PM

debating with extremists isn't pointless, it's harmful

it gives them the idea it's okay to talk about the views in public

@JAD One could argue that calling something pointless is extremist.

feel free to replace pointless for harmful.

Hehe

you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into

sounds reasonable

12:44 PM

@mag Every extremist reasoned themselves or has bee reasoned into that point of view

That reason may be false

Or even a blatant lie

@mag It is absolutely OK to talk about any view in public. That's kind of important. Now, how that view will be received is another matter and we need to make sure we educate our society so that it will know to receive ridiculous views with ridicule.

But to them, it's reason

But we should never try and silence a view just because we find it offensive.

@Cerbrus thats not really reason, it's emotion and tribalism, mostly.

@mag You can dismiss any view with the same argument.

12:46 PM

you got a point

still

youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw This is a very interesting watch... About a black guy that befriended a KKK grand wizard, and in the end got that grand wizard to denounce the KKK. Not by arguing, but by listening.

@mag You're not wrong, but that's kinda of how humans work. And that's exactly why it's important to engage and not muffle.

@Cerbrus wasn't there a recent movie about that?

@JAD You're thinking of the cop who infiltrated the KKK.

One of my personal heroes :)

@JAD BlacKkKlansman ? That's about a black cop

Good movie, different story

12:49 PM

I'm playing partly devils advocate here

I personally have a pretty instinctual abhorrence for silencing, but I can see a rational position why people favor it

@mag Yes, there are arguments to be made, as you have been doing. I just don't find them convincing, personally.

personally, even if discussing with them actually helps the alt right more then silencing them, I still would take that as a collateral loss because going for silencing tactics means I'd become my own enemy. But I'm also in an overall pretty privileged and unaffected position, so it's easy for me to hold that view and I can see why minoritized people would scoff at that

so I'm careful with swaying too far in either opinion

my own enemy because free exchange of ideas and due process are my fundamental moral basis in anything I try to do

to risk getting off topic, same reason I am against any sort of extrajudicial dealing with terrorists. I don't care if it's bad for us if we give terrorists due process, that's just a loss we have to take. The alternative is that we stop being anything worth defending

> Status: We are unable to process your request at this time. If you’d like to follow up, please contact privacy-support@stackoverflow.email and reference the ID above.

Wut

:8008127 ??

@mag we are in violent agreement! :)

12:55 PM

@mag Copy paste derp

@Cerbrus Oh wow. So many people have been issuing GDPR requests.

@Cerbrus where on earth did you copy paste that from

concern

Makes sense. many of us are scared.

From my earlier message

oh

12:56 PM

I wasn't sure if they made the movie's title punny by adding that extra k

This "talking with someone is endorsement of his views" thing is kinda dangerous.

4

@DavidA is, isn't it? You can quickly find yourself on the wrong side if you're a little slower in reaching new conclusions

Tinkeringbell

@DavidA It's not necessarily that you are endorsing someone's views... but by talking about it in public spaces, you're giving them a platform. At least, that's how my friendly neighbourhood journalist describes it...

the problem is when the definitions of what is deplatform-worthy shift

It's also about who gets to decide what deserves a platform and how are you so sure of your moral superiority that you feel you can make that decision.

1:03 PM

@DavidA The issue this sentiment seeks to address is that debates online often don't really consist of an exchange of ideas. Instead, you're talking to the spectators about the other person and their view. If you ever want a perfect example of this, watch any of the US presidential debates. By allowing a debate on such a subject, you're essentially agreeing to have your platform serve as advertising space for these positions

Additionally, with social media these days, where is the line between public and private platform?

I don't have a solution for this, the downside of silencing is totally abhorrent and I couldn't bring myself to endorse or do it, but it's not completly baseless

@mag exactly, those debaters have no intention whatsoever of changing their opinions

@JAD I would say that public platforms should be protected from liability from the behavior of their users, while private ones should receive much less protection.

Ah yes, the publisher/platform distinction

in other words, how responsible is a platform, public or not, for the content on it

1:08 PM

Yeah, that's a hard one, true.

I don't think there's any website I would "vote off the internet" for being too offensive or dangerous. Except maybe Twitter lol.

enderland

Facebook has a growing ability to manipulate and control narratives around a lot of things....

I think that removing twitter will just cause another similar format to take its place

similar to the shift from facebook to instagram that a lot of people made

ArtOfCode

@DavidA cough 4chan

@JAD which is ironic, given that it's exactly the same company

@ArtOfCode 8chan cough

1:10 PM

@enderland I read today that they are starting their own news outlet

the people for whom 4chan was too censorious

@ArtOfCode I know right

@DavidA oh I can think of a few

Wasn't the shift from Facebook to Instagram a demographic thing too? Millennials not wanting to hang out with their parents?

ArtOfCode

probably

1:12 PM

@Raedwald maybe. I think the biggest takeaway is that people are looking for the type of platform, so if one disappears, the next will pop up

My day has just been vastly improved by coming across three gazelles.

@user58 I ride my Gazelle to work each day

each weekday*

Yeah, I don't think the gazelles I saw could support your weight ;)

are you calling me fat? ;)

Unfortunately, they hopped away before I could dig my phone out of my riding backpack and snap a picture.

1:16 PM

:(

Rubiksmoose

@user58 :D

Millions of years of evolution ensured you had no chance of snapping them.

@Raedwald now to evolve to carry go-pros on our heads to get that chance back

I have a GoPro, I just didn't have it on me this time :(

I could always go back and stake out that spot. It's the second time I've seen gazelles in the vicinity.

Picture: long zoom lens heat hazed picture of gazelles. In the foreground @user58 creeps closer. David Attenborough voice over:...

1:24 PM

They're mountain gazelles, so it wouldn't be quite like that...

Huh, apparently they're really endangered.

@mag As I said before, it all comes down to one question. Does the company want to make this a better place or all is needed is advertising this is now a better place to the public? And you know, if it is the first one, congrats everyone: we probably just spent months yelling at each other while trying to do the same thing.

1:41 PM

@SPArchaeologist-様 they need not be in conflict. Getting people to spend more time on the site means more ad opportunities, and it's an audience with a lot of money.

@DavidA oh, that I do realize. I am just no longer sure the company as a whole does.

While is sure that single employees do indeed want to pursue a "be nice, be kind" objective, some of the corporate level action seem more focused at destroying the bad reputation Stack has gotten oven the years than on achieving actual change. Obviously, IMHO.

djsmiley2k - CoW

> What should we do if we refuse to comply with a request?
You must inform the individual without undue delay and within one month of receipt of the request.

You should inform the individual about:

the reasons you are not taking action;
their right to make a complaint to the ICO or another supervisory authority; and
their ability to seek to enforce this right through a judicial remedy.
You should also provide this information if you request a reasonable fee or need additional information to identify the individual.

They didn't do any of this

SE, do you even law?

SRC: ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/…

@SPArchaeologist-様 Derp.

@user58 you forgot an "Y"

Journeyman Geek

Y?