Greetings FSFE folks!Daniel Pocock writes FSFE is censoring people:https://danielpocock.com/what-is-the-difference-between-moderation-and-censo... https://danielpocock.com/what-is-the-difference-between-moderation-and-censorship
Please tell us this is not to be true? Virgil
Hi,
Thank you for subscribing to this list today and joining the discussion!
Regarding your question, as one of the moderators, I can tell you that the claims in the linked blog post are not true. The author either did not receive the full emails or is leaving out important parts himself. Either way, I saw some of the mails he is referring to and the quotes are not complete. Please take information from this blog with a grain of salt because the presented information is unfortunately often incomplete and one-sided. That is all I can say about the referenced blog post.
What we, and I personally, want to avoid here are further unproductive flame wars. That has been very difficult, but luckily there have been hardly any problematic emails after we announced to set this list to moderated. We, the moderators, and also other volunteers who are heavily involved in the day to day activities of the FSFE, want to hear criticism and we are actually working on providing an additional way for you to voice your criticism and ask questions.
I volunteered to write a proposal for that new option, but I have not found the time yet and I have felt emotionally drained from all the fights, to be honest. So please allow me to take a few more days and get back to you with more information once I have it.
Happy hacking! Florian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Hello Virgil.
I have read the news about a stated censorship that is ongoing in the mailing list. I would not be surprised if it were true that this is an ongoing action however that is impliciting that an action is to be taken by the responsible moderators of this mailing list to somewhat fast strip the abusing moderators their rights to moderate any further.
The sole reason for moderation is to calm a discussion down and the abuse of moderation will be to kill a discussion off.
This is a wake up call for moderators on discussion@lists.fsfe.org and their responsibility is to leave these people out of moderation privileges right away.
It is certainly not OK with me.
Kind regards, Andreas
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 16:11 +0200, virgilva@keemail.me wrote:
Greetings FSFE folks! Daniel Pocock writes FSFE is censoring people:
https://danielpocock.com/what-is-the-difference-between-moderation-and-censo...
Please tell us this is not to be true?
Virgil _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
- -- Developer of Chilling Spree, a Quakeworld(tm) server modification licensed under GNU GPLv2.
Download area: http://download.tuxfamily.org/cspree/.
Member of FSFE. Fellow no 00 000 3948.
Composer of CC BY licensed works.
Download and streaming hosted at https://goblinrefuge.com/mediagoblin/u/andreas/.
GnuPG fingerprint: 579A 7871 2B40 5331 487D 465F B122 68DC 6FEF D814
Hi Andreas,
On 14.09.2018 17:18, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
I have read the news about a stated censorship that is ongoing in the mailing list. I would not be surprised if it were true that this is an ongoing action however that is impliciting that an action is to be taken by the responsible moderators of this mailing list to somewhat fast strip the abusing moderators their rights to moderate any further.
The sole reason for moderation is to calm a discussion down and the abuse of moderation will be to kill a discussion off.
This is a wake up call for moderators on discussion@lists.fsfe.org and their responsibility is to leave these people out of moderation privileges right away.
It is certainly not OK with me.
The job of moderators is letting useful discussions happen but not hatespeech and accusations without any substance. Please do not believe _everything_ you read on the internet. For fact checking please all people have a look at the minutiae of the general assemblies and speak to other people.
Best wishes Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Hello Michael.
The job of moderators is letting useful discussions happen but not hatespeech and accusations without any substance. Please do not believe _everything_ you read on the internet. For fact checking please all people have a look at the minutiae of the general assemblies and speak to other people.
Yes, hate speech is generally unwelcome in a democratic society, certainly. The recent discussions was although free from hate speech, such as instigating against a group of people based on race or religion. In any case I read the post by Florian Snow and the quotes from emails are lacking context, therefore I kindly request that Florian Snow fills out the lacking context with the full emails.
Kind regards, Andreas
- -- Developer of Chilling Spree, a Quakeworld(tm) server modification licensed under GNU GPLv2.
Download area: http://download.tuxfamily.org/cspree/.
Member of FSFE. Fellow no 00 000 3948.
Composer of CC BY licensed works.
Download and streaming hosted at https://goblinrefuge.com/mediagoblin/u/andreas/.
GnuPG fingerprint: 579A 7871 2B40 5331 487D 465F B122 68DC 6FEF D814
Hi, Andreas!
Am 2018-09-15 um 06:26 schrieb Andreas Nilsson:
Yes, hate speech is generally unwelcome in a democratic society, certainly. The recent discussions was although free from hate speech, such as instigating against a group of people based on race or religion.
I also consider hate speech and personal attacks unwelcome if it is directed at a single person, or a group of person not identified through race or regligion.
In any case I read the post by Florian Snow and the quotes from emails are lacking context, therefore I kindly request that Florian Snow fills out the lacking context with the full emails.
This sentence confuses me, since I can't find a post by Florian Snow which contains quotes from emails.
Thanks, Reinhard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Hi Reinhard.
Clarification regarding the emails. The quotes from emails that Daniel Pocock posted on his blog were both the sender/author and the moderation response. When I wrote that "the quotes from email were lacking context" I meant that the emails Daniel Pocock posted was not entirely detailed (according to Florian Snow). Hence my request for full emails.
As far as I know, hate speech originated as a crime against a group of humans based on demeaning them for what they look like or believe in.
Personal attacks are something else and are not criminal. Satire uses personal attacks a lot in art and comedy without meaning a malicious intent.
Kind regards, Andreas
On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 09:07 +0200, Reinhard Müller wrote:
Hi, Andreas!
Am 2018-09-15 um 06:26 schrieb Andreas Nilsson:
Yes, hate speech is generally unwelcome in a democratic society, certainly. The recent discussions was although free from hate speech, such as instigating against a group of people based on race or religion.
I also consider hate speech and personal attacks unwelcome if it is directed at a single person, or a group of person not identified through race or regligion.
In any case I read the post by Florian Snow and the quotes from emails are lacking context, therefore I kindly request that Florian Snow fills out the lacking context with the full emails.
This sentence confuses me, since I can't find a post by Florian Snow which contains quotes from emails.
Thanks, Reinhard
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
- -- Developer of Chilling Spree, a Quakeworld(tm) server modification licensed under GNU GPLv2.
Download area: http://download.tuxfamily.org/cspree/.
Member of FSFE. Fellow no 00 000 3948.
Composer of CC BY licensed works.
Download and streaming hosted at https://goblinrefuge.com/mediagoblin/u/andreas/.
GnuPG fingerprint: 579A 7871 2B40 5331 487D 465F B122 68DC 6FEF D814
September 16, 2018 7:14 PM, "Andreas Nilsson" emitter@hush.com wrote:
Personal attacks are something else and are not criminal.
Legal or not, personal attacks should not take place on this list. Moderation helps to keep this a safe place for everyone to participate and discuss in a respectful manner. It's expected that people who tend to be disrespectful towards other, take this as censorship.
~nikos
Hi Andreas,
Am Sonntag 16 September 2018 11:05:02 schrieb Andreas Nilsson:
Personal attacks are something else and are not criminal.
but not welcome here either I hope, especially attacks that aim for degrading a person (lile "ad hominem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) as opposed to their political view.
Please also compare this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks which includes comparing people to infamous persons or various threats.
Satire uses personal attacks a lot in art and comedy without meaning a malicious intent.
If it is clearly satire, it would'nt be a personal attack it would be ironic or saracstic or so. :)
Best Regards, Bernhard
On 16/09/18 09:07, Reinhard Müller wrote:
In any case I read the post by Florian Snow and the quotes from emails are lacking context, therefore I kindly request that Florian Snow fills out the lacking context with the full emails.
This sentence confuses me, since I can't find a post by Florian Snow which contains quotes from emails.
I would think Andreas Nilsson is mentioning the email from Florian Snow where he state that Daniel Pocock
"[...] did not receive the full emails or is leaving out important parts himself. Either way, I saw some of the mails he is referring to and the quotes are not complete."
so Andreas his asking for the full emails and complete quotes to be made available so that better judgement can be attained.
Best regards
Miguel
On 14 September 2018 at 23:08, Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.org wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On 14.09.2018 17:18, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
I have read the news about a stated censorship that is ongoing in the mailing list. I would not be surprised if it were true that this is an ongoing action however that is impliciting that an action is to be taken by the responsible moderators of this mailing list to somewhat fast strip the abusing moderators their rights to moderate any further.
The sole reason for moderation is to calm a discussion down and the abuse of moderation will be to kill a discussion off.
This is a wake up call for moderators on discussion@lists.fsfe.org and their responsibility is to leave these people out of moderation privileges right away.
It is certainly not OK with me.
The job of moderators is letting useful discussions happen but not hatespeech and accusations without any substance. Please do not believe _everything_ you read on the internet. For fact checking please all people have a look at the minutiae of the general assemblies and speak to other people.
Having done exactly this fact checking I can see most of the things Daniel is claiming are true, except a few things in which he’s made (honest) mistakes. What I disagree with is the bad intent which I believe Daniel assumes; I think there wasn’t one originally, and the rest is just the result of people not being careful in their communications to each other and turning disagreements into political decisions.
(a message that was sent to the old list on 17.09.2018 and blocked by FSFE censors, can you find any CoC violation in it? Or is it the golden rule of censorship: block any discussion about the censorship!)
On 15/09/18 11:54, Andrej Shadura wrote:
On 14 September 2018 at 23:08, Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.org wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On 14.09.2018 17:18, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
I have read the news about a stated censorship that is ongoing in the mailing list. I would not be surprised if it were true that this is an ongoing action however that is impliciting that an action is to be taken by the responsible moderators of this mailing list to somewhat fast strip the abusing moderators their rights to moderate any further.
The sole reason for moderation is to calm a discussion down and the abuse of moderation will be to kill a discussion off.
This is a wake up call for moderators on discussion@lists.fsfe.org and their responsibility is to leave these people out of moderation privileges right away.
It is certainly not OK with me.
The job of moderators is letting useful discussions happen but not hatespeech and accusations without any substance. Please do not believe _everything_ you read on the internet. For fact checking please all people have a look at the minutiae of the general assemblies and speak to other people.
Having done exactly this fact checking I can see most of the things Daniel is claiming are true, except a few things in which he’s made (honest) mistakes. What I disagree with is the bad intent which I believe Daniel assumes; I think there wasn’t one originally, and the rest is just the result of people not being careful in their communications to each other and turning disagreements into political decisions.
There is more to it, I have avoided publicizing some private messages which provide stronger evidence of censorship, disrespect for the result of the election and various other things going on. Also, the effect of moderation is that you don't see everything.
The moderators say they care about the "tone" of messages:
- in the FSFE community, only 28 people are actually members[1] of the association, FSFE e.V. Almost all the people who appear to have a positive "tone" are quite happy and even a little bit smug about the situation because they are in that group. That includes emails from these people: Florian, Reinhard, Bernhard, Erik, Alessandro, Nikos, Thorsten and others listed on the people[1] page.
- the Fellowship has 1500 fellows, it is much bigger than FSFE e.V. All the people posting with a more assertive "tone" are not members of FSFE e.V. because the whole fellowship thing has always kept them on the outside. Look at messages from Matthias H, Stefan, Paul, Luke,, myself they appear to be fellows and NOT full FSFE members. So how can they have a positive view on the situation?
Notice how the vast majority of messages come from people within that first group?
Even though the second group is so much bigger, notice how very few fellows (0.25%) are actually engaged in the discussion, while 25% of the FSFE e.V. members have engaged in the discussion. Over a hundred people in the second group simply didn't pay this year: no email to the discussion list, they just quit.
There are also many people on this discussion list who did not join the fellowship and do not pay the fees, they may not have any opinion and may feel frustrated by all these messages, but I would ask them to remember that the mail server is subsidised by the money from fellows.
Regards,
Daniel
On May 6, 2019 11:15:56 AM EDT, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
Notice how the vast majority of messages come from people within that first group?
Even though the second group is so much bigger, notice how very few fellows (0.25%) are actually engaged in the discussion, while 25% of the FSFE e.V. members have engaged in the discussion.
I don't know. Could it perhaps be the case that those 25 percent do most of the work like in many organizations and that dealing with you can be part of that work?
Could it be that this message did not make it through because it again abused numbers in a misleading way?
On Mon, 6 May 2019 17:15:56 +0200 Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
while 25% of the FSFE e.V. members have engaged in the discussion.
It’s simply because they have interest to maintain the current narrative alive.
Besnik
Hi, Andreas!
Am 2018-09-14 um 17:18 schrieb Andreas Nilsson:
The sole reason for moderation is to calm a discussion down and the abuse of moderation will be to kill a discussion off.
If the intent of the moderators was to kill the discussion off, wouldn't it be illogical to let the messages through which claim that censorship happens? :-)
FWIW, I am happy that the moderation happens here, since I was already very close to unsubscribing from this list, of which I have been a member for more than a century.
Thanks, Reinhard
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 09:11:12AM +0200, Reinhard Müller wrote:
Am 2018-09-14 um 17:18 schrieb Andreas Nilsson:
The sole reason for moderation is to calm a discussion down and the abuse of moderation will be to kill a discussion off.
If the intent of the moderators was to kill the discussion off, wouldn't it be illogical to let the messages through which claim that censorship happens? :-)
<don't take that seriously> You are obviously not used to conspiracy theories. Letting this message through was to make people believe there is no abuse of moderation, since the claims of censorship are in well-publicised blogs anyway. </don't take that seriously>
FWIW, I am happy that the moderation happens here, since I was already very close to unsubscribing from this list, of which I have been a member for more than a century.
A decade maybe? Or since last century, but not "for more than a century"?
Hi, Lionel,
Am 2018-09-16 um 17:22 schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane:
FWIW, I am happy that the moderation happens here, since I was already very close to unsubscribing from this list, of which I have been a member for more than a century.
A decade maybe? Or since last century, but not "for more than a century"?
ROFLMAO.
Of course I meant decade. Thanks for pointing that out :-)
Best, Reinhard