ta76567656
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
134
Submissions
59
Member since
Jan 7
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
Whether they are a good or bad idea, maybe not, but whether they should be supported, opposed, or ignored, it is relevant. The group of people actively pushing for codes of conduct and the group of people making decisions like the one above have significant overlap, and empowering one empowers the other. It's kind of like the police. We need police and I want to like the police. But until they can police themselves and keep police abuse to an absolute minimum, supporting them should not be a foregone conclusion.
Comment · 8 years ago
Whenever I see a code of conduct I check if "political opinion" is a "protected class". Then I ask, "Could Brendan Eich have been excommunicated under this code?".
I rarely find the first. The second is less clear cut, as far as I can tell the new Linux contributor code of conduct would not have directly applied to him.
None the less, the harm is in that it empowers exactly the same group of people who got Eich fired in the first place.
Much like progressives try to "de-platform" conservatives, these codes of conduct "en-platform" progressives. And while some of their points are valid, it's hard to endorse their camp when they go around hit and run blackmailing others under the threat of shouting Racist! Misogynist! Shitlord! to force them to do things like changing master/slave database terminology or even more insane, changing blacklist/whitelist terminology.
Comment · 8 years ago
I understand that, which is why I ended my original comment with: Not saying you're wrong I'm just surprised.
Comment · 8 years ago
Sure, but that's enough money to retire comfortably at any age in a first world country. Did Musk do a lifetime's work worth of damage to the man? Did he make it impossible for the other man to work? Was the other man even fired? How many people actually believed Musk?
Comment · 8 years ago
$10,000,000 sounds like the judgement I'd expect in a wrongful death suit, not a single episode of mud slinging. Not saying you're wrong I'm just surprised.
Comment · 8 years ago
Parent doesn't seem to be arguing that these providers are anonymous, just that you get what you pay for in customer service. They explicitly say that end to end encryption (ie client side PGP) is required for privacy.
Comment · 8 years ago
mailbox.org
(not affiliated, just a user)
Comment · 8 years ago
The American one doesn't? I have an Android phone - they know who I am - and they know what I search for.
Comment · 8 years ago
In practice it matters, I think, even if in principle you can't undelete something from the internet. If someone is not explicitly looking for it, or not looking very hard, then the fewer places it exists the less likely it is that they'll run into it.
Comment · 8 years ago
They can if you're Redbox, which is what the parent was talking about. With DRM bullshit they can circumvent the Right of First Sale principle.
Comment · 8 years ago
The main issue with this approach for me is that Google et. al. clearly have much better physical security than my apartment. In exchange for in-principle privacy improvements and possibly forth amendment protection you take on a huge risk of burglaries, fires, floods, power outages, etc, plus of course the workload of being your own sysadmin.
Also, if you're paranoid, your data is more exposed. You can turn off all your devices with disk encryption when they're out of your control (usually) but if you turn off your NAS while your away from home it's useless. And if it's on, physical access, and therefore your data, is easy to obtain by the moderately motivated.
Google is like a feudal lord: they might own you, but they'll protect you from everyone else weaker than them.
Comment · 8 years ago
Maybe they could change their name to "Hospital of the Temple Moneychangers"
Whether that's the law wasn't my point. And actually some progressive states do have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on political opinion. They probably came from the Hollywood Blacklists, and are now amusingly ignored and irrelevant as a moral principle now that the shoe is on the other foot.
But Eich wasn’t fired, he stepped down and resigned of his own volition. Both he and others at Mozilla maintain this version of events, and it’s — as far as I can see — uncontested. You seem to be saying that you want a code of conduct that explicitly prohibits protest against political opinions. Good luck with that.
The progressive demanded he lose his job and conducted a campaign until he did. Potato potato.
his is a myth: “Deplatforming” is neither exclusive nor even more prevalent on the left.
"They both do it" does not imply "the left doesn't do it". My point was just to introduce the tactic, which is relevant.
Fighting against such nonsense seems eminently more sensible (and more winnable!) than fighting for the prohibition of political protest in codes of conduct.
It is not winnable. Look at recent events, eg redis. And allowing codes of conduct that don't protect unrelated, out of scope, and otherwise politely expressed political opinions makes it even less winnable.