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

[carlo von lynX]

Everyone is free to refute sociology or science in general
and declare it an opinion.

I just came here to suggest a way to handle the situation
that nobody else had the idea of suggesting, based on some
research that got published on this thing called Internet.

I got some good feedback (in private) and some mixed
feedback of mixed competence.

No problem. I am done.

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

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

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:23:52PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:16:24AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > I agree with you. Some say "naming and shaming" is the way - I say naming
> > bad behaviour, publicly, is not shaming.
> > 
> > Naming simply says "Hang on, that's threatening, are you serious or
> > letting your words preceed you?" or "That's agressive and likely hurtful
> > communication, do you care to rephrase or retract?"
> 
> Er, that's not exactly what I meant. Just because you "define" it to not
> be shaming doesn't mean you can't keep the person you are "naming" from
> feeling shamed and therefore, like most adults, go into defense and fire
> back mode rather than accepting criticism.
> 
> I was suggesting to interact in private, work out the contents of the
> posting together. Certainly complicated by mail, but it is kind of feasible
> with recent forum softwares such as Discourse.

This is a valid approach. Where you have an individual receptive to your
position that you put privately, it may be "successful". If not, others
may be able to assist. If not, involve the whole community. If there's
unanimity against your view, find another community.

These are valid pathways of course.


> > For those who care, I think this discussion you are spearheading is very
> > good.
> 
> Thanks a lot. We've been discussing this in the Italian pirate community

Wow, I did not realise that pirates were not limited to South Cape and
Somalians. Or perhaps you refer to copyright infringement community?

Or PiratParty community?


> > > That is natural, and it is sociologically a losing game.
> > 
> > I completely disagree. It's only a losing game when one of the individuals
> > involved is repressed. When all parties are not in the slightest repressed
> > by the vehemence, vitriol or other intesity of the 'conversation', then
> > the conversation is great entertainment.
> 
> Oh you mean if the debate is intense in the contents but respectful
> of the contendants? Yes ok, then ideally it becomes a winning game.  :)

Winning game yes.

Respect? Sort of - even disrespect/ vitriol can be brushed off as "oh
that's just his way of communicating" or "wow, intense, I feel sorry for
you if you really feel that way" or...


> > Neither you, SJWs, nor anyone, will ever convince me otherwise. There are
> > actually people in this world who will take verbal blows from any and all,
> > in order to learn how to joust, in order to cut to the chase, in order to
> > (try to) identify bullshit as quickly as humanly possible.
> > 
> > It's a very useful skill to be able to go hammer and tong for a few
> > rounds, then turn around in the few minutes and discuss technical details
> > of some computer program - with the same person. That's liberating. That's
> > a sign of being able to handle your emotions.
> 
> Oh.. hm.. well it causes damage by looking like a serious fight to third
> parties.

If you're ever unsure as an onlooker, I suggest actually asking the
jousters.

They may even find your interjection useful you know :)


> Would you be able to take it private or does it need an audience
> to be enjoyable?

Let's say you, and someone you are on generally agreeably vehement and
vitriolic communication terms, have a verbal jihad against one another.

Right. So, if you do that privately, I don't get to watch and enjoy it do
I? That's what I'm sayin...


> Aren't you a bit egoistic if you're more focused on your
> joy than on the general progress of the project?

Probably. I hope my subtlety precedes me - you know, like the 'Dalai Lama
takes humility lessons from me' kind of subtlety...


> And how can you be sure 
> the other side indeed never gets hurt by your words? In digital words, 
> there's no recognizable difference, or is there?

Case by case, but I've been talking mostly about me as an onlooker. Though
I have been one to leap in (often to my superficial detriment by the way).


> Wouldn't it be better in most cases if a vibes watcher kept you guys
> from getting personal and made you stick to a fact-oriented debate?
> Doesn't mean you can't hammer out strong statements - just cut out the
> hurting.

F*iretr*uck no! And no, it's not about hurting.

Think boxing - verbal jousting is less painful than physical boxing. I
take it you would not be one to choose to train and be a physical boxer?

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the boxers, who go to a match, like a
Fight Club match, and you decide to go there and teach them all how
fighting is so yesterday, and can we be robustly firm with a bit of arm
wrestling since blood and bruises really are too personal and
fact-oriented ok so just all you stop now ok and stick to arm wrestling
cause you know that's the type of jousting which is ok.

Comprende?


> > Sure, some people, perhaps most, are not there yet. And warm cosy
> > comfortable 'communities' are just what the doctor ordered for those who
> > are unwilling to stretch such personal 

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

[carlo von lynX]

> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:32:31PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> > 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.

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:16:24AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> I agree with you. Some say "naming and shaming" is the way - I say naming
> bad behaviour, publicly, is not shaming.
> 
> Naming simply says "Hang on, that's threatening, are you serious or
> letting your words preceed you?" or "That's agressive and likely hurtful
> communication, do you care to rephrase or retract?"

Er, that's not exactly what I meant. Just because you "define" it to not
be shaming doesn't mean you can't keep the person you are "naming" from
feeling shamed and therefore, like most adults, go into defense and fire
back mode rather than accepting criticism.

I was suggesting to interact in private, work out the contents of the
posting together. Certainly complicated by mail, but it is kind of feasible
with recent forum softwares such as Discourse.

The person will probably still think you're an authoritarian nuisance,
but if noone in public took notice they are more likely to deal with it
and forget the incident. And what's best: they will try to avoid having
such an exchange with the moderator again - which means they will improve
their behaviors.

So they become better people not because they want to. Hardly anyone wants
to spend time fixing their bad habits. But if it means not having to
interact with the moderation authority, that will be an actual motivator.

So ideally the moderator won't have all that much work to keep the
community in positive moods all the time. This framing adds the missing
bit of basic social requirements that exist in real-life, and so a
community that runs under this rule should actually feel more "normal".

Yes, just not in public IMHO. Actually would be useful to have a study
to confirm this, but I guess it 

> > 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 those who care, I think this discussion you are spearheading is very
> good.

Thanks a lot. We've been discussing this in the Italian pirate community
for several years now. Last week we passed 'convivenza' into the party
regulations, so should anyone care about us again we have a better chance
of being able to deal with popularity. I am convinced the main issue that
made the German pirates implode was the absence of punishment for destructive
and harrassing behaviors.

> In any particular "community", if there's not at least one other person
> who 'cares', my default suggestion is move on, find another group.

Well, they also need to have the authority to exercise "care". And the
nerve to be a pre-emptive vibes-watching nuisance, ready to deal with
potential insults (at least they are in private, and you know they are
against your function, not your person).

> > That is natural, and it is sociologically a losing game.
> 
> I completely disagree. It's only a losing game when one of the individuals
> involved is repressed. When all parties are not in the slightest repressed
> by the vehemence, vitriol or other intesity of the 'conversation', then
> the conversation is great entertainment.

Oh you mean if the debate is intense in the contents but respectful
of the contendants? Yes ok, then ideally it becomes a winning game.  :)

> Neither you, SJWs, nor anyone, will ever convince me otherwise. There are
> actually people in this world who will take verbal blows from any and all,
> in order to learn how to joust, in order to cut to the chase, in order to
> (try to) identify bullshit as quickly as humanly possible.
> 
> It's a very useful skill to be able to go hammer and tong for a few
> rounds, then turn around in the few minutes and discuss technical details
> of some computer program - with the same person. That's liberating. That's
> a sign of being able to handle your emotions.

Oh.. hm.. well it causes damage by looking like a serious fight to third
parties. Would you be able to take it private or does it need an audience
to be enjoyable? Aren't you a bit egoistic if you're more focused on your
joy than on the general progress of the project? And how can you be sure 
the other side indeed never gets hurt by your words? In digital words, 
there's no recognizable difference, or is there?

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

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:32:31PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> > 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.

In this world, you're stuck with humans, as you find them/ as they present
themselves to you. You can't get around this little thing called
reality...

> > 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.

I agree with you. Some say "naming and shaming" is the way - I say naming
bad behaviour, publicly, is not shaming.

Naming simply says "Hang on, that's threatening, are you serious or
letting your words preceed you?" or "That's agressive and likely hurtful
communication, do you care to rephrase or retract?"

These types of public naming are very good, often useful, and I do
recommend them - should be on the list of standard possible responses I
agree.

> 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 those who care, I think this discussion you are spearheading is very
good.

In any particular "community", if there's not at least one other person
who 'cares', my default suggestion is move on, find another group.


> > 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.

I agree with you, and in hindsight I can see I failed to state the pathway
of naming the "bad behaviour" publicly - just make sure to not get sucked
in to your own ad-hom or other emotional type attacks, because then its
all over, you're in the gutter and no better than the purported bully.


> > 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.

I completely disagree. It's only a losing game when one of the individuals
involved is repressed. When all parties are not in the slightest repressed
by the vehemence, vitriol or other intesity of the 'conversation', then
the conversation is great entertainment.

Neither you, SJWs, nor anyone, will ever convince me otherwise. There are
actually people in this world who will take verbal blows from any and all,
in order to learn how to joust, in order to cut to the chase, in order to
(try to) identify bullshit as quickly as humanly possible.

It's a very useful skill to be able to go hammer and tong for a few
rounds, then turn around in the few minutes and discuss technical details
of some computer program - with the same person. That's liberating. That's
a sign of being able to handle your emotions.

Sure, some people, perhaps most, are not there yet. And warm cosy
comfortable 'communities' are just what the doctor ordered for those who
are unwilling to stretch such personal boundaries.


> 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.

I heartily agree - and some people enjoy "vigorous" communication, they
consider vigorous communication not only "does work", but "works very
well, thank you very much, and by god I'll verbally crucify you should
dare to take my entertainment away from me".

And we have these incredible devices called computers and programs where
with the click of a few buttons, a whole new forum with rules, moderators,
mechanisms for joining and giving the boot etc can be had. That's amazing.
Anyone can create whatever genre of online "community" they think will
save the 

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

[carlo von lynX]

> > > 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, ma...@wk3.org 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

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

[tor_talk]

Hi Tor Talkers and Malte,

Malte wrote Wed Jun 8 10:47:15 UTC 2016:
"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?"

Maybe there is an app out there for the mobile device with which you can 
interrupt someones attitude/intention. If there is no such app it should do 
such things like:
1. shortkey to start the app on e. g. (the own) phone and extend it (with a 
following number) as the situation goes on
a) ring tone
hey, someone is going to ...
b) this call is for you
- i don't want to have .../sex with you (1)
- today is bad, try it another day (2)
- i don't like you, this will not happen, ever (3)
- go to jail => establishing connection with the next police station, 
automatically, so they can follow the ongoing (4)
- to all the gaffers around, pls help me, i can't stand it on my own, help me 
NOW...you over there come and help me, take me with you and scream to the 
followers while i feel i haven't the breath for that. (5)
The voice of the phone needs to volume up.

2. train this kind of situation once in a while
- for your own safety with someone you trust or pay for
- for the safety of others in that situation, so you quickly get a clue what is 
going on
training is important as it is with doing first aid
there are trigger things even for gaffers to interrupt someones intent

if you feel someone is not excellent tell the person who needs some extra 
social upgrades. sometimes the person is either not so skilled or that skill 
isn't important right now for the person or is in a "flow" or ...
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

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

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:47:15PM +0200, ma...@wk3.org wrote:
> Quoting carlo von lynX (2016-06-08 08:28:23)
> > 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.
> 
> ???
> 
> > 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. 
> 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?
> 
> 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?

A very good question. Not many have answers, especially those who have
suffered in such situations.

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.

An answer?

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

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.

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

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.

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...

Good luck
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

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

[malte]

Quoting carlo von lynX (2016-06-08 08:28:23)
> 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.

???

> 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. 
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?

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?
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

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

[carlo von lynX]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:08:57PM +0300, ja.talk wrote:
> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2853643-Jacob-Appelbaum-CULT-of-the-DEAD-COW-Statement.html
> https://www.facebook.com/cultdeadcow/posts/10157076402890360

Facebook? Ouch.

> CULT OF THE DEAD COW Statement on Jacob Appelbaum / ioerror
> 
> Like much of the hacker community, we were troubled to hear the allegations 
> of sexual abuse, manipulation, and bullying leveled against one of our 
> members, Jacob Appelbaum, A.K.A. ioerror. We’re also aware that the Tor 
> Project is conducting an internal investigation, and encourage anyone with 
> relevant testimony to come forward. For some, it won’t be easy. There can be 
> shaming or humiliation, or the fear of not being believed.

To come forward where to? If there is a legitimate internal committee
to turn to, that is good.

> It is also our responsibility to create an environment where people feel safe 
> to come forward.

So what have you done. Have you elected a court of arbitration?
It is *not* safe for either victims nor suspects of crime to
go public in front of the entire Internet, and just declaring
the Internet an "environment where people feel safe" doesn't
make it so. So where is that environment?

> We have always stood for freedom of speech and expression, which sometimes 
> necessitates the right to anonymity.

See my previous post on the false understanding of freedom of
expression. It is completely false to apply in this case.

> This is something that victims of abuse often require.

That is a fair way to think, but has proven to be socially and
legally wrong. You don't produce justice by fostering more crime.

> We stand by their right to be anonymous. Others, like our friend Nick Farr, 
> who decided to go public with his own difficulties, deserve our respect and 
> support. Everyone will do this in their own way.

No, that is a different form of abuse. If you handle things like
this, then there is no way to distinguish a true cry for justice
from an actual smear campaign. You are playing by the rules of
JTRIG. You are enabling manipulation.

> We know that it may be scary, but we also encourage victims to contact their 
> appropriate local authorities. We understand the complicated relationship we 
> all have with law enforcement, but there is a time and place for government 
> intervention. If the most extreme of these allegations are true, they should 
> be addressed in a court of law, and dealt with appropriately.

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.

> CULT OF THE DEAD COW is known for a lot of things, but treating people 
> horribly is not one of them. If communities are to thrive and remain relevant 
> we have to do some housecleaning from time to time. As we have become aware 
> of the anonymous accusations of sexual assault, as well as the stories told 
> by individuals we know and trust, we've decided to remove Jake from the herd 
> effective immediately.

Yeah yeah, we all think we are "the good" and our community isn't
as bad as other Internet communities. Truth is, these problems are
systemic and apply to all digital communities since decades. If
you don't provide for justice, then injustice will happen, and
you will never know for sure if you punished the culprit or the
victim.

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.

If you don't do it through such a court, you end up enabling 
and even legitimizing a lynch mob. That may not be as bad as
the purported crimes, or maybe it actually is, since it becomes
impossible to figure out the truth, so as a side effect the
entire community reaches a condition ideal for manipulation:
Anyone can be character-assassinated anytime.

I know everyone including the CULT of COW is operating in
their best intentions, but you also know the way to hell.


-- 
  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@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

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

[juan]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:08:57 +0300
ja.talk  wrote:


cult of the clown cow vomited : 

> We know that it may be scary, but we also encourage victims to
> contact their appropriate local authorities. 

Just in case somebody out there hasn't yet realized what kind
of 'collective' fraud the 'hacker' 'community' is.

The 'hacker' 'community' is actually a bunch of posseurs and
intellectual frauds, slightly more knowledgable than script
kiddies and fully aligned with the US establishment.


> We understand the
> complicated relationship we all have with law enforcement,

as in, "we are a bunch of sell outs" 


> but there
> is a time and place for government intervention. 


Don't you love kaptain amerika.



If the most extreme
> of these allegations are true, they should be addressed in a court of
> law, and dealt with appropriately.
> 
> CULT OF THE DEAD COW is known for a lot of things, but treating
> people horribly is not one of them. If communities are to thrive and
> remain relevant we have to do some housecleaning from time to time.
> As we have become aware of the anonymous accusations of sexual
> assault, as well as the stories told by individuals we know and
> trust, we've decided to remove Jake from the herd effective
> immediately.
> 
> EOM

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk