Re: [tor-talk] CULT OF THE DEAD COW Statement on Jacob Appelbaum / ioerror

[carlo von lynX <lynX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > > The problem is, if the victims have committed crimes themselves
> > > by making their stories public, then going before a judge may
> > > backfire on them. Not just fake victims, also real victims.
> > > They may get prosecuted for defamation on top of having suffered
> > > a crime. We know that the justice system may not be able to
> > > punish even a true offender if no legal proof can be produced.
> > > So if you want victims to feel safe to talk to the authorities,
> > > you must keep them from committing a counter-crime.
> > 
> > ???

If that paragraph was unclear, please ask a question.

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:19:04PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:47:15PM +0200, malte@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Quoting carlo von lynX (2016-06-08 08:28:23)
> > > That's why I am in favor of pre-emptive management of social
> > > issues (aka "vibes watching") and a more fine-grained justice
> > > system internal to the hacktivist movement. A court made of
> > > people we trust that victims can turn to safely, without 
> > > engaging in further crimes, yet enabling that court to take 
> > > measures to protect future people from becoming victims.
> > 
> > You mean like "Someone is abrasive on mailing lists all. the. time. 

No, I was talking of the other scenario several threads are about.

> > Let's talk to them about it in private, oh they are still abrasive,
> > let's talk to them in private, oh, now they are writing weirdly
> > misogynistic things, let's not let that stand unchallenged, suddenly
> > they are implicitly threatening you with physical violence.", that
> > kind of thing?

I remember an instance when somebody at all costs wanted to give my
words a completely bogus interpretation and flame me to death for it.
Since I learned from the past that engaging in a discussion on a mailing
list would inevitably lead to a major flame war, since that person's
emotional writing was clearly beyond rationality, I tried to clear up
the misunderstandings by one-to-one mail - just like the sociological
handbooks suggest. Curiously, the person refused to answer, so apparently
the good intentions were lacking. Since that community, like most online
communities, had no justice system, I had to leave it at that.. allowing
that confused person to damage my public reputation out of some confused
mood. I don't even believe they are ridden by bad intentions. I left it
at that, although I felt I had been treated injustly.

On a later occasion I met the person and was confronted with even more
refusal to engage in the clearing up of the situation. They had decided
all by themselves that I am not a human being worthy of a decent exchange
of words. That was a harsh insult to take in. Somebody essentially denying
me my right to exist, to be part of our common fight. I probably got
loud and didn't show the best me that I want to be, but refusing to
clear up trouble isn't a basis on which two people can continue to 
co-exist in a community project they both care about. That person had
unilaterally decided to expel me from the project as good as they could.
And the whole thing was absurdly unnecessary, since we have the same aims
and I simply am not who they need to believe me to be. It is so much more
practical to think that being in a community takes zero obligation to
try and be peaceful with others, than to look at their own mistakes. And
so that community, like many others, is poisoned, as we have seen also on
other occasions.

> > Where would you go, and what would you do, if you felt physically
> > threatened by someone, and that same person would be discussing
> > how to design systems to deal with such situations?

Well, apparently that person wants these things not to happen by design,
as they aren't pleasant for anyone in such a constellation. Having
experienced various roles in troubled situations increases the competence
for working out solutions, no? Are you sure that person isn't just hurt
by your actions?

Currently most online communities take suffering in until it is
impossible to continue, then expel some people on some grounds, and
then the process starts anew.

I think we would be much better off with a de-escalation practice that
allows people to learn from their mistakes and makes them better people.
Interestingly I found tons of literature on this subject, but hardly any
Internet community, that actually practices it. On this entire topic I
took a serious amount of time to write http://my.pages.de/convivenza 
which unfortunately is available only in Italian and German, but the list
of English-written references is useful all by itself.

Some trolls just want attention, and by being taught how to behave better
they actually also achieve getting the attention they might actually
deserve. But a decent justice system is pivotal to achieve such aim -
well-intended words and codes of conduct never work if they aren't
enforced, because even the best-intended people will sometimes use the
wrong wordings in what they write - it is a systemic defect of written
communication and sociological research describing this problem, the lack
of cues in human interaction, goes back to the early 1980s.

In other words, the main problem is the medium, not the people. Some people
may indeed be trying to hurt or damage a process for their own political
interests, and they need to be recognized and treated separately from those
who just find it hard to interact socially over a wire. An early approach
of vibes watching and occasional moderation can integrate the second kind
better, without hurt feelings, and expose the first kind early enough to
keep them from achieving damage. So you need the vibes watchers, officially
in charge to moderate (everyone moderating everybody else has proven to not
work - that is also discussed in convivenza) and a court of appeals in case
a moderator punishes the wrong person or the community elected a wrong 
person into the role of moderator.

> Unfortunately "SJW" has taken on some denigrating meanings, since quite a
> few SJW poseurs have popped up here and there and often times ended up
> creating problems, which have in some online communities persisted for
> years.

Oh wow, I didn't know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
It totally fits what I just described. I presume this popular culture
terminus arises exactly from the problem of how a person cannot pursue 
social justice on their own terms if the community hasn't given them an
explicit mandate and, in the case of digital mediums, the means to execute
factual moderation. If nobody made you have this role, you will be subject
to being ridiculed by the trolls and ultimately produce more damage than
the troll originally did. This is something I discuss in convivenza. I
should add this link.   :)

> Fistly, identify if someone is being bullied, and second, if the target of
> the bully appears strong enough to handle the "bully".

Even if the target is strong enough, the constellation will still cause
damage I believe.

> If not, or if you are unsure, talk with the targetted one offlist and
> check in to see if they're ok or would like any offlist ear to talk to.

That is a possible way a vibes watcher could go about it, but I would
rather intercept any aggressive postings to appear in the original form,
but rather send them back to the writer asking to clear up some aspects
that may be misunderstandable or in plain disregard of the code of conduct.
In the scenario I described earlier either I should have received a mail,
explaining how my mail had a potential of being misunderstood and needed
rephrasing, or the reply that attacked me as a reasonable human being 
shouldn't have seen the light.

Unfortunately the work of vibes watching moderators is frequently confused
with censorship, but that goes back to the fallacious understanding of
freedom of expression that I mentioned in previous postings and which is
also addressed in convivenza.

> For the one who is conscientious, such communication comes naturally and
> hopefully contributes to a stronger, all around warmer community.
> 
> Those who just love to go at it hammer and tong at each other, well,
> perhaps sit back and enjoy the view, and if the view is too personally
> distressing to you, consider Ye Goode Olde Kille File - it's not that

Just a few mails ago I listed a bunch of links that elaborate how the
"Don't Feed The Troll" maxime is fundamentally flawed and punishes the
victims while letting the troll achieve their political aims.

> hard to change the view. I personally find it difficult to restrain myself
> from leaping into the fray on one side, then the other, rather than simply
> sit back and enjoy the view. I personally really enjoy it when individuals

That is natural, and it is sociologically a losing game. Systems need to
be designed around humans *as they are*, not try to change the behaviour
of all involved humans, then find out it doesn't work. One of the reasons
why democracy kind of works is because it doesn't expect humans to be any
less egoistic than they by nature are. Communism, anarchism and especially
anarcho-capitalism are prone to that fallacy, if I understood them well.

> are strong enough to joust back and forth, and back, and forth, then do it
> all again tomorrow. Can't get much better entertainment.

It is also proven that your community will suffer damage because third
parties watching the litigation will quietly turn away. You will lose
participation.

> Thirdly, if you feel that you personally are being targetted by a bully
> and that you are finding it challenging, or really not coping, I suggest
> saying less where possible and reasonable, and identifying one or more
> individuals whom you consider would be receptive to you and listen to you
> with empathy.

Especially if those people will then try to clear up any potential
misunderstandings, or take consequences if a "crime" has indeed taken
place. Thus acting as a court of arbitration. If all parties are well-
intended, the chance of negotiating a form of peace exists. Too rarely 
this path is pursued. In the case of a person with a tendency of over-
stepping boundaries you achieve much more in teaching them to not do so
if you work with them quietly but with the necessary authority, rather
than to shame them in public and ruin their potential as an otherwise
constructive contributor. Plus igniting a war.

> NOW, if you are unable to identify such a receptive, empathetic individual
> within your chosen community, you are going to find it tough going and I
> don't have much more in the way of suggestions for you, other than to find
> a community with like minded individuals. Forums are not so difficult to
> create these days, and if ultimately your version of a warm and caring
> community requires moderation, you may have to experience that pathway in
> your own little online community to discover how that goes...

If a community is so cool that it gets big, then it refuses to provide
a system of justice, then it will slowly degenerate into a sucky
community. I guess this is what the originator of the "Tor RIP" thread
is afraid of. The wider Tor community will get shitty if it doesn't 
introduce justice, and, possibly, democracy. And it will be subject to
whatever outside forces like JTRIG want to do to it.


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk