zlacker

I don't get how this follows; no-one needs to be a secret anything, and the aim isn't even personal. Targeting "ideas rooted in fascism and bigotry" means to oppose the discursive ideas and concepts as they are put forth in the community, and the resulting concrete actions, that come from fascism and bigotry – specifically not the people or private thoughts.

>>dwb+(OP)
Even if you deal just with ideas and somehow separate them from the people who promote them, what mechanism do you propose to use to decide whether an idea is rooted in bigotry or fascism? The accusation is incredibly nebulous and can be used to derail almost any proposal.

For the sake of argument, let's say I put forward the charge that the policy itself is rooted in bigotry. Can you prove that it is not?

>>dwb+(OP)
eelco here is not accused of behaving in a facist or bigoted manner though. The accusation is two steps away already, specifically not being sufficiently supportive of the means of a process which has prevention of facist or bigoted behaviour as one of its goals.

>>margin+u6
Of course not, but asking for a "proof" for a question like that is a category error. It will be decided by whatever the group decision process is, which would have to be present for all the other non-trivial, and yes, fuzzy things that have to be decided, both technical and social.

>>Macha+S9
Indeed. Is that not a valid complaint?

>>dwb+Ma
Ok, let's pretend you're on the committee and you have dismissed my accusation that the policy is bigoted.

My next move is to publicly accuse the committee harboring fascist sympathies. Your voting record is undeniable, and I am just appalled this stuff can go on in the 2020s and demand the committee is replaced with people who does not hold these bigoted beliefs.

>>margin+Nd
Gotta say, this scenario you're so intricately weaving doesn't sound like any open source project I've ever come across. I guess I'll continue playing. At this point it would depend on how many people agreed with you that the policy itself is rooted in bigotry. If it's just you, then this new accusation is going to sound pretty silly.

I guess you're trying to pull an example from history. I don't doubt that authoritarian regimes can get accusatory, and nonsense can spiral. But we're not talking about authoritarian regimes, we're talking about open source software projects. I don't buy that they're at all similar enough to make this kind of connection.

>>dwb+(OP)
I think the GP nailed it. The thing is, no one in the community has been promoting fascism and bigotry. There are, however, plenty of insinuations. That's why there's strong opposition to this kind of thing.

Any other topic would've equally been as problematic. Is it a bad thing to target "terrorism" as well? How about "human trafficking?" Can't you please think of the children!

>>dwb+od
Not every policy claiming to prevent (insert something heinous here) is a good one.

The PATRIOT Act is a terrible law. Opposing it doesn't make you a terrorist. But you would've been accused of being one nonetheless if you opposed it in 2001.

It's easy to see why many people wouldn't want to actively get into such a controversy. But even that is being used as grounds for kicking someone out.

>>sorami+qD1
I disagree that this is comparable to American politics in 2001, and that Eelco isn't actively involved.

>>dwb+qh2
Active involvement? No evidence of Eelco encouraging fascism or bigotry has been presented so far. It's all rhetoric, ad hominems, and insinuations.

Also, I brought up the PATRIOT Act because it's so strikingly similar. Any rule that is broad and vague can and will get abused. Any prior assurances otherwise have zero effect. Yet, looking at discussions in RFC 98, there was strong opposition to making the rules clear and well-defined in scope. It's no wonder the community was unable to reach an agreement. Also no wonder that the whole thing is blowing up even further because the moderation is effectively operating in this way regardless.