| 7 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | thanks | 13:05:45 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
oh no, I've been hackernews'ed What for? Related to Nix? | 13:09:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ESM | 13:13:27 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | but I don't want to take over this channel with complaints about HN, it was more just a comment of "here's why I'm gonna be a bit absent probably" :) | 13:15:39 |
| 12 Nov 2021 |
| Room Avatar Renderer. | 03:56:47 |
| 14 Nov 2021 |
|  @colemickens:matrix.org joined the room. | 07:23:45 |
| 21 Nov 2021 |
|  ryblade set a profile picture. | 20:42:48 |
| ryblade changed their display name from ryblade to ryblade (you/your). | 21:32:49 |
| 22 Nov 2021 |
 hexa | https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 | 16:00:06 |
| ryblade | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 whoa | 16:12:32 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | There's been some drama around the core team a few weeks ago, but wow | 16:13:57 |
| ryblade | absolutely nuts | 16:14:31 |
| ryblade | wonder if this is in response to the ashley williams stuff or not | 16:19:59 |
| hexa | also https://mobile.twitter.com/adamhjk/status/1462812661356265473 | 16:26:22 |
| hexa | * also https://twitter.com/adamhjk/status/1462812661356265473 | 16:26:26 |
 [0x4A6F] | Interesting talk at RIPE83: Dr. Corinne Cath - The Enemy is us: on the sharp edges of Internet Governance Cultures slides & video. | 16:26:51 |
| [0x4A6F] | There is also a RIPE Code of Conduct in RIPE-766. | 16:27:01 |
| ryblade | In reply to @0x4a6f:matrix.org
There is also a RIPE Code of Conduct in RIPE-766. looks RIPE for abuse, especially by the end of the document | 16:34:03 |
| ryblade | that good faith clause seems to vaguely declare that certain people are naturally incapable of being victims or perpetrators. i'm more a believer in "hate is as hate does". | 16:42:39 |
| ryblade | * that "discretion to reject reports" section seems to vaguely declare that certain people are naturally incapable of being victims or perpetrators. i'm more a believer in "hate is as hate does". | 16:43:49 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I always measure "good faith" on the reaction of people when called out. Do they acknowledge a mistake, do things actually improve afterwards (if it happened repeatedly), or do they double down on their bad take? | 16:43:58 |
| ryblade | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
I always measure "good faith" on the reaction of people when called out. Do they acknowledge a mistake, do things actually improve afterwards (if it happened repeatedly), or do they double down on their bad take? this depends on the definition of a mistake and operates on the assumption that the person being called out has made a mistake, which is often subjective. there are situations where a plaintiff may have unfairly perceived malintent (i'm guilty of this a LOT, getting that chip off my shoulder is a lifelong work), or situations where a defendant might not understand why what they did was wrong. so in either situation, "doubling down" might not necessarily be a result of abject belligerence. for this reason i've never been a fan of heavy application of community moderation, except in the cases of fighting against "abuse of service" types of behaviour, like spamming and flooding. sorry for the tl;dr. | 16:51:19 |
| ryblade | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
I always measure "good faith" on the reaction of people when called out. Do they acknowledge a mistake, do things actually improve afterwards (if it happened repeatedly), or do they double down on their bad take? * this depends on the definition of a mistake and operates on the assumption that the person being called out has made a mistake, which is often subjective. there are situations where a plaintiff may have unfairly perceived malintent (i'm guilty of this a LOT, getting that chip off my shoulder is a lifelong work), or situations where a defendant might not understand why what they did was wrong (been guilty here too). so in either situation, "doubling down" might not necessarily be a result of abject belligerence. for this reason i've never been a fan of heavy application of community moderation, except in the cases of fighting against "abuse of service" types of behaviour, like spamming and flooding. sorry for the tl;dr. | 16:51:44 |
| ryblade | * this depends on the definition of a mistake and operates on the assumption that the person being called out has made a mistake, which is often subjective. there are situations where a plaintiff may have unfairly perceived malintent (i'm guilty of this a LOT, getting that chip off my shoulder is a lifelong work), or situations where a defendant might not understand why what they did was wrong (been guilty here too). so in either situation, "doubling down" might not necessarily be a result of abject belligerence, but a misunderstanding. for this reason i've never been a fan of heavy application of community moderation, except in the cases of fighting against "abuse of service" types of behaviour, like spamming and flooding. sorry for the tl;dr. | 16:52:08 |
| ryblade | in any case, that's a bit outside the scope of what i was worried about in that document, but still, i'm not comfortable with the idea of moderators being given the power to literally determine intent in the minds of other people, over limited communication mediums where nuances like body language, tone of voice, etc. are lost. when those very same moderators have the power to close discussions, ban users and sculpt the very society around them, there is a 100% chance that bad decisions will be made, and that such power will ultimately lead to corruption. | 17:06:59 |
| ryblade | * in any case, that's a bit outside the scope of what i was worried about in that document, but still, i'm not comfortable with the idea of moderators being given the power to literally determine intent in the minds of other people, over limited communication mediums where a lot of the nuances of communication are lost. there's no body language or tone of voice, and speakers of the same language may have completely different cultural understandings and meanings of certain words. when those very same moderators have the power to close discussions, ban users and sculpt the very society around them, there is a 100% chance that bad decisions will be made, and that such power will ultimately lead to corruption. | 17:09:58 |
 @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | can you specify what does community moderation mean, what is the complement to that? | 17:14:05 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | I am assuming (not knowing) that most people think some sort of moderation might be needed | 17:15:21 |
| ryblade | i can only speak for myself, not most people, and on that note i'm not much of a fan of mob rule, either. community moderation is when moderation is applied to people's behaviour and conduct as it relates to one another, rather than how it relates to use (or abuse) of the protocol or platform itself. language policing is but one example. again, i only speak for myself, but if i find someone offensive, i just disregard what they have to say. if it gets worse, i block them, and i'd only ever think of calling a moderator if that person, say, were signing up a bunch of sock puppets to evade my attempts to block repeated harassment from them. | 17:19:00 |
| ryblade | considering how sophisticated things like advertising bots, scams, phishing and and spamming has gotten, i'd feel a lot safer knowing that a moderation team is always available to deal with real threats when they appear, rather than being tied up all the time having to arbitrate over complaints of offensiveness. think of it like fire safety. it's mostly the responsibility of the homeowner, but the fire department is there when your own personal diligence fails. if your house is on fire, your hope is that your local station has an engine or two and a bunch of firefighters hanging around. if they're busy putting out fires everywhere, you're less likely to get help in time. | 17:24:40 |
