So now I've had a conversation with a moderator at Fosstodon.

It seems as though, despite the sites pretty bold CoC prohibition on "public or private oppressive language or actions" (language they borrowed from elsewhere), they construe that prohobition much more narrowly than is written.

In fact they allow a great deal of oppressive language, if you don't @ anyone directly.

This contradiction bolsters my inclination to suspend the instance—until they decide to enforce their CoC as written.


@codesections what you said was "Our practice has been to draw a distinction between 'speech to' and 'speech about'"

That distinction isn't in the CoC, and it isn't in the spirit of the text of that document, so to me, it is a narrowing construction.

Let me know if the practice changes.

You might consider running the practice by the original author(s) to see whether they agree its consistent with the text. Seems clear to me it isn't.

@codesections Alternatively, is my post about Gamma the Techbro a personal attack? It's clearly written in response to certain events and certain people, even if the details are fuzzed a bit.

The honest answer here is, "it depends," which means its a gray area so arbitrated by the admins/mods.

Grey areas are usually beneficial to the status quo and harmful to those who disagree - after all, look at the grey area of Kev's post; the default is inaction: complicity.



The argument could be made that regardless, because it's kinda shady, my post is uncouth and so warrants blocking as though it were a more obvious personal attack.

But what if I only phrased it this way because I'm concerned about harassment? I don't see another way to say it, realistically, without being so general that it's not really informational about the situation I mean to talk about.

@codesections I bring this stuff up, I know I bowed out of the early conversation because I got emotional, because I want to highlight how easy it is for deliberation and inaction to bias things toward those who have the power already, and given how "those who have the power" tends to be "privileged collaborators with systems of oppression," that is, as I see it, incompatible with inclusivity.

(I don't have more to say on this, past this message, bye again, lol. 3/3)

@codesections there are intermediate steps, including conversations, public apologies, other soft forms of authority.

I just think it's deceptive for Fosstodon to have an anti-oppression CoC but read it in a way that tolerates oppression.

@codesections @lawremipsum I note that you haven't taken a position on whether the specific opinions expressed by Kev in the snowflake thread are oppressive or not.

You have to make a decision on this. If you don't, your silence speaks for you.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A community centered on the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, and their surrounding region. Predominantly queer with a focus on urban and social justice issues.