Re: [qubes-users] Qubes-users forum - Please, moderate this guy
Chris Laprise
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/qubes-users/V8_SvMk0yx0/P4VNTpFnBQAJ
>
> "Achim. Don't forget YOU are the homosexual, NOT ME. That's a mental disease, doesn't matter if for political reasons was removed or not from disease list."
>
> Even me, being heterosexual, feel offended with this attitude.
>
I agree.
Chris
Duncan Guthrie
On 9 July 2016 13:17:13 BST, Gorka Alonso <ray.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/qubes-users/V8_SvMk0yx0/P4VNTpFnBQAJ
>
>"Achim. Don't forget YOU are the homosexual, NOT ME. That's a mental
>disease, doesn't matter if for political reasons was removed or not
>from disease list."
>
>Even me, being heterosexual, feel offended with this attitude.
"If you want to REMAIN WRONg, you - consider some kinda autistic thinking about to WHO is qubes directed
with a limited mind about what are the activities of a NORMAL PERSON
inside a computer."
Again, I think this is needlessly inflammatory and stigmatises autistic people.
D.
Alex
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/qubes-users/V8_SvMk0yx0/P4VNTpFnBQAJ
>
> "Achim. Don't forget YOU are the homosexual, NOT ME. That's a mental
> disease, doesn't matter if for political reasons was removed or not
> from disease list."
>
> Even me, being heterosexual, feel offended with this attitude.
>
are a little different, especially regarding bans/censoring.
While your requests can be understood, the result will be poor, because
anybody has a copy of the messages sent here and users can post without
actual registration. "Banning" somebody will likely not have any
practical effect.
The best result as always on the internet is to just ignore people
overreacting, aka drop the conversation entirely on the spot, without
turning back or announcing "I'm gonna leave the conversation now" or
anything else like that.
Just my 2 cents, not only for a mailing list but can be applied
(successfully, I would say) all over the net.
--
Alex
Desobediente
A really sad thing indeed, and irritating, but in the end it boils down to "just ignore".
The technical nature of a mailing list does not allow "banning", in some cases, not even "moderation". Even if messages are erased from groups.google.com, everyone has a copy already. In a controlled environment where you could determine whether people are able to read some messages, that would be possible. But given the circumstances, that's not an option.
That said, there is another problem. When you censor people that has a strong opinion (not saying it's right or wrong), they get upset and usually start promoting even more of the same agenda. So when you say someone is wrong and should shut up, what you are really doing is telling them that they should continue making their point again and again and in so many ways until it's spammed everywhere and there's no way that anyone doesn't see it.
In this given context, whenever you fight back anything you don't agree with, the subject will almost always presume that "you didn't get it" and will flame you with all kinds of different ways of saying the very same thing, until you admit he's right.
My experience shows that there are other ways of achieving victory in a ideological fight than to elect a operational system mailing list as a stage, but don't get my word, I recommend anyone to try and see for itself ;)
Alex
> I'm a political activist with years of experience of dealing with
> related situations, especially in the internet, and I endorse the
> idea that the single thing you can do is to ignore these things.
Another thing I think may help the younger people understand the
toughness of the problem of understanding each other on the internet is
the fact that, by written word only, you cannot easily ascertain the
state of mind of the writer. "Bad guys" on the internet are not always
trolls.
As an example, people may sit at their computer after a hard day at
work, or after an argument with their partner, and may channel their
stress to their fingertips. The fact that sending e-mails does not incur
in post fees, and that there is a sense of anonymity, unleashes the
worst of us even when it's not intended.
So, there are people whose work is to disrupt online communities, be it
for a paid job, or for fun, and there are hard moments in the life of
everyone of us. Everyone of these people may sit at a computer and write
an e-mail, and we can never be 100% sure of what their ideas actually
are. Mix that with the fact that a lot of the users here are not native
english speaker (myself included), and may use figures of speech that
make sense only in some specific culture.
TL;DR: Drop the conversation already if it takes a wrong turn. There
will be many more occasions of agreement together later in time.
I may not have the experience of Disobediente, but that's what I
observed in my life with people I got to know.
--
Alex
bur...@gmail.com
> I'm a political activist with years of experience of dealing with related situations, especially in the internet, and I endorse the idea that the single thing you can do is to ignore these things.
>
> A really sad thing indeed, and irritating, but in the end it boils down to "just ignore".
>
> The technical nature of a mailing list does not allow "banning", in some cases, not even "moderation". Even if messages are erased from groups.google.com, everyone has a copy already.
I don't think the point of moderation is preventing any possibility of copies. That sounds like a red herring.
If antisocial attitudes start propagating on the list, then curtail it. Don't let newcomers wonder whether the project managers condone those messages. That is toxic.
> In a controlled environment where you could determine whether people are able to read some messages, that would be possible. But given the circumstances, that's not an option.
>
> That said, there is another problem. When you censor people that has a strong opinion (not saying it's right or wrong), they get upset and usually start promoting even more of the same agenda. So when you say someone is wrong and should shut up, what you are really doing is telling them that they should continue making their point again and again and in so many ways until it's spammed everywhere and there's no way that anyone doesn't see it.
Making it all about them and their feelings means being held hostage to their sentiments. But if they feel strongly, they're going to also feel entitled to do it everywhere when no one calles them out for their abuse.
> In this given context, whenever you fight back anything you don't agree with, the subject will almost always presume that "you didn't get it" and will flame you with all kinds of different ways of saying the very same thing, until you admit he's right.
In my experience, this kind of free-wheeling attitude usually only applies to abuse from privileged viewpoints and serves to enlarge their sense of entitlement. When the abuse goes in the other direction, however, there isn't even a discussion and action is taken.
There is no doubt in my mind that abuse aimed at some other targets would already have been dispatched with at least a note of disapproval.
> My experience shows that there are other ways of achieving victory in a ideological fight than to elect a operational system mailing list as a stage, but don't get my word, I recommend anyone to try and see for itself ;)
You're probably a native English speaker; Even as the digital divide has shrunk, the Anglophone web is still dripping with intolerance coming from straight, white, religious, male hatred that looks down on everyone else. You may also be spending too much time in your activist circles; Skim random videos on Youtube, or comment sections of tech sites...its unavoidable in those venues and flourishes because it receives tacit approval.
And lets not ignore the fact that your post has already served as a segue point to make excuses for the poor misunderstood souls. It would be funny if it didn't make ITL appear comfortable with bigotry.
Alex
>
> If antisocial attitudes start propagating on the list, then curtail
> it. Don't let newcomers wonder whether the project managers condone
> those messages. That is toxic.
conversation, which is different. More on this later on.
> Making it all about them and their feelings means being held hostage
> to their sentiments. But if they feel strongly, they're going to also
> feel entitled to do it everywhere when no one calles them out for
> their abuse.
there is no reaction, or non-intentional, when the isolation is starting
to be apparent.
> In my experience, this kind of free-wheeling attitude usually only
> applies to abuse from privileged viewpoints and serves to enlarge
> their sense of entitlement. When the abuse goes in the other
> direction, however, there isn't even a discussion and action is
> taken.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that abuse aimed at some other targets
> would already have been dispatched with at least a note of
> disapproval.
been started by somebody, and they make the rules. Nobody said that
there is (or needs to be) any democracy, rule of law, or impartiality
with that. This is not a journal, these are not articles, we are
perfectly aware that there are dogs writing at our keyboard and that our
opinions are completely just that, opinions. If you seek truth, don't
search for it on the web. Go read a book, which has to have (by law) a
known author (or authors), or a journal, which has to have (by law)
known authors and an obligation of correction of mistakes.
Those law requirements do not apply to pen-marker writings on the walls
of a train station, why should you try to apply them here?
> You're probably a native English speaker; Even as the digital divide
> has shrunk, the Anglophone web is still dripping with intolerance
> coming from straight, white, religious, male hatred that looks down
> on everyone else. You may also be spending too much time in your
> activist circles; Skim random videos on Youtube, or comment sections
> of tech sites...its unavoidable in those venues and flourishes
> because it receives tacit approval.
sources. I myself *could* register a dozen gmail accounts and go write
everywhere on the net about $thing. This does not make it real, and does
not make it more trustworthy than a thousand pen-marker writings on the
walls of a train station.
Tacit approval is a problem with verified sources, say books, newspapers
or journals, and this is exactly why they have an obligation of
correction by law. If you see a problem with this, it's because you are
trying to compare very different forms of pubblications.
> And lets not ignore the fact that your post has already served as a
> segue point to make excuses for the poor misunderstood souls. It
> would be funny if it didn't make ITL appear comfortable with
> bigotry.
thing, an intentionally unmoderated list of e-mails is *another*, and
the latter does *not* produce any form of endorsement, nor "being
confortable with" anything.
The suggested solution connects with this difference, in that the fact
that published e-mails are a form of conversation gives endorsement in
replying. So dropping the conversation altogether IS the most effective
form of rebuttal on *this* particular form of communication/publishing.
The fact that the english language is so extremely simple does not give
me different words for "publishing on a journal", which implies some
form of trust in the authors, because of requirements by law, and
"publishing as in writing on a wall", which does not provide any form of
verification of any authors. You can liken the comments on a video/blog
post/tumblr to this flurry of e-mails. They are completely insignificant
per se, and gain importance only in their contents.
This mailing list is just people writing on a wall, there are
interesting articles, and kids drawing dick pictures. Ignore the dick
pictures, for the many of them that may appear, and take the interesting
bits.
--
Alex
bur...@gmail.com
I don't think those characterizations hold up. A person arriving at this venue will be sensitive to social signals of acceptance or intolerance. They may arrive here from links in the documentation. And it channels important statements from ITL.
The approach advocated here creates a medium for hateful messages to dominate against a background of silence.
>
> > You're probably a native English speaker; Even as the digital divide
> > has shrunk, the Anglophone web is still dripping with intolerance
> > coming from straight, white, religious, male hatred that looks down
> > on everyone else. You may also be spending too much time in your
> > activist circles; Skim random videos on Youtube, or comment sections
> > of tech sites...its unavoidable in those venues and flourishes
> > because it receives tacit approval.
> And yet, people in their right mind should never trust unreliable
> sources. I myself *could* register a dozen gmail accounts and go write
> everywhere on the net about $thing. This does not make it real, and does
> not make it more trustworthy than a thousand pen-marker writings on the
> walls of a train station.
>
> Tacit approval is a problem with verified sources, say books, newspapers
> or journals, and this is exactly why they have an obligation of
> correction by law. If you see a problem with this, it's because you are
> trying to compare very different forms of pubblications.
Not only is this an official forum, referenced by the system documentation and bug tracker, and where messages are often signed... but I find your "go read a book" comment to be a bit too dismissive. So I can start to get an impression where your sympathies lie, because you didn't tell the troll to go somewhere else for answers. (Interesting how easily that attitude couched in erudite language gets twisted against those who speak up.) You're misrepresenting the nature of the medium and making excuses for his outbursts instead. And you said its fine if there is a bias.
This fake position of indifference is really thinly-veiled hostility... If you don't want to hear people complaining about trolls, I suggest YOU go find a book that doesn't exist (the Qubes book) and read it. Don't be an asshole.
Holger Levsen
> I don't think those characterizations hold up. A person arriving at this venue will be sensitive to social signals of acceptance or intolerance. They may arrive here from links in the documentation. And it channels important statements from ITL.
>
> The approach advocated here creates a medium for hateful messages to dominate against a background of silence.
those from poisoning a community.
--
cheers,
Holger
Achim Patzner
Yes, moderation would help but would you really want someone to read every single message before forwarding it to the mailing list? Right now it is easier to provoke an attack (as I did) and then ignore him (which after all will annoy him more). That’s why I put up the
___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
sign.
Achim
raah...@gmail.com
I always call it a forum cause I log into google groups webpage. You are right to just ignore is usually best solution.
Duncan Guthrie
Personally, I think we don't need to have an active "moderator", but when poison starts seeping through just blacklist the email address/account. We can't assume everyone is guilty but when the guidelines of common decency are violated then we need to have a process. It is hardly censorship; personal, vindictive and downright discriminatory comments should not be tolerated on our mailing list if we don't want them (if they were actively welcomed, I don't think most of us would be here).
Obviously they could come back with another address/account but the average internet troll will probably be somewhat deterred by this, especially if they are voicing their bigotry because they had too much to drink or something (obviously they could be a bigot in real life, just not very vocal). If they are actually like this all the time, then a formal mailing list probably isn't their average abode, or particularly convenient. Likely they frequent reactionary online forums much more often.
The troll is gone now, so problem solved? If I am correct, these are linked to a forum on the Google Groups website? I don't know if deleting the posts is the right form of action but I would think that one or two of them should probably go. They do reflect badly on the community to an extent.
Just my view on the matter,
D.