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 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.