Please note, some of my opinions are strongly held. Please also note, I encourage and support everyone to express their opinions, even those contrary to my own of course.
I hope no-one gets scared off by my written vehemence. I think there is an important discussion to be had and my intention is to express my own position and to begin a discussion, not to argue against others' opinions. Some quoting with permission (in general I will leave it to others to copy or post their own opinions or etc, it is too much work for me right now): On 3/12/14, Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/12/14, Andrei POPESCU <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mi, 12 mar 14, 01:25:47, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >>> -- OFFLIST -- > >> If you prefer. Feel free to quote me on anything I write below though. >>> My intention is to start a discussion around censorship of our >>> debian-user (and other) mailing lists, and also around exercising our >>> authority - we are the subscribers, and it's up to us to say and >>> demand and have whether we want, or do not want, censorship, and/ or >>> clandestine censorship, and/ or individual-post or whole-user >>> censorship etc. >> >> I disagree with you here. -user as well as all other mailing lists on >> lists.debian.org and lists.alioth.debian.org "belong" to the Debian >> Project. They are run using Debian resources (hardware, listmasters, >> etc.) and exist for the benefit of the Debian Project. >> >> Even if lists like -user are primarily subscribed by non-Debian members, >> this doesn't mean they (we) "own" the list and I believe the Debian >> Project is entirely within its rights to restrict access to this >> resource (temporary or permanently) to certain individuals in case it >> believes those individuals may bring harm to the goals of Debian and the >> community built around it. >> >> If you don't agree with the above I'd be very interested in you opinion >> about what the Debian Project should do about occurrences such as: >> >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00350.html >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00462.html > > Mr Natural Linux, Arnold Bird, etc. Interesting - thank you for those > links. At the very least those would need to be included to explain > why censorship is proposed and/ or is in place. > >> And if you don't believe these can be actively harmful see for example >> >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00466.html > > This is the reaction to the above of course. Again, thank you for those > links. Warning, the following analogy by me has created at least one reaction which I consider was not optimal for the discussion: > What we are seeing is a microcosm, in Debian, of the greater societal > 'problems' and I am referring to things like: > *) the type of torture at Abu Graib of "terrorists" (because some > military or FBI or NSA guy said they're terrorists) - this is like the > highly objectionable call to torture in the first two links you gave, > and > *) the 'anti-terror' laws in response (like the msg00466.html link > above) - where the NSA (listmasters) does clandestine spying on all > citizens (list subscribers), with again, behind-closed doors > censorship (you are now in jail, we say you have no right to speak > about it, you have no right to a lawyer, if you're family talks about > you in jail we will put them in jail too) - the highly objectionable > call to amass power into the hands of a "common sense" few Here I wish to show without naming anyone, that I got a strong opposition to my use of the NSA analogy, and again, I support the right of everyone to express their opinion - note I have NOT received consent to name the author or this quote: > What *I* see is a terrorist who doesn't like the way his compatriots are > being treated. Trying to equate the Debian lists to the NSA and FBI is > only trying to incite a riot. > > The bottom line is - the list is owned by Debian, and Debian has the > right to accept or reject anything they wish. If you don't like it, > find another list or create your own. > > You have just lost one potential supporter here. So please note that my words can sometimes be taken offensively, and I view this as quite possibly sub-optimal communication on my part. Anyway, let's NOT debate the pros and cons of analogies, but rather the issues at hand. > The problem with the absolute executive power is that, although the > current generation may have good intentions, and may not abuse their > power (I am not saying this is the case or not), once that power is > established in statute law (official code of conduct with executive > power to listmasters), then there is the possibility that on the next > round (next govt, next issue of the day), someone like Mr Arnold Bird/ > Maas Verri becomes the one who is a listmaster and abuses that power > to censor discussions which ought _never_ be censored, at least by the > "common sense" of the majority of the list. > > So first things first, we need to recognize what the real problems > are, before we can truly decide what to do. > > I say that a real and genuine problem is a Maas Verri becoming a > listmaster, BEFORE they have ever "said the wrong thing" or "done the > wrong thing". > > I believe Maas is actually one of the many alter egos we have seen > trolling, and I also believe he is the vehement, vocal and sometimes > irrational member of the Debian Technical Committee, Ian Jackson. > > Even if they are not the same person (highly doubtful in my mind), it > is useful for us to assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that > they are the same person - what this highlights is the problem I am > witnessing - namely, someone gets into a position of power (Tech Ctte > or Listmaster) on very good "appearances" even over many years. > > Then one day, when things don't go "right and good" according to their > own way of thinking, a darker side pops out, like a puppet, unexpected > and WAY out of line (as we see above). > > So the deep problem is not "Listmasters need more power", but in fact > "how do we give power, then take power away, or delegate the power of > the community (users or developers) as a whole, and fix abuses of > power after they happen?" > > We are in Debian's microcosmic equivalent to the world's reaction to > "terrorists". > > At the moment, the government, those with franchise (the right to > vote) in the Debian "community" (ie developers) are planning an > executive decision which will effect users of this list, debian-user@. > > Currently the "Debian project/ developers" say that I, a user of > Debian and a subscriber to debian-user list, ought to have no > authority over how my debian-user list is censored, and that they (the > government/DDs) get to decide "for me" and will do so "behind closed > doors" (on debian-private)! > > This power is in principle objectionable to me. > > I am a subscriber to debian-user and I have the right to object to > things which are objectionable to me, such as clandestine censorship > and such as legislated clandestine censorship! > > I as a subscriber, also have a duty of care to the "Debian Project". > > I don't do development work for Debian, but I do do 'work' of > contributing to debian-user list (and benefiting from it), so why am I > disenfranchised on decisions which will effect me and my use of the > resource known as debian-user? > > <sarcasm, don't take offence please :) > > Oh, that's right, I'm just a dumn USER, not much better than a LOSER > or a CONSUMER, and I need to be treated as such, with no right to have > any say over the forum (debian-user) in which I am an active > contributer, I have no right to say the list should not be censored. > </sarcasm> > > Please don't take me the wrong way, I'm just trying to use comedy here > to highlight the issue. > > Granting of power. > Franchise. > Removal of power. > Censorship. > Handling 'crimes' such as 'hate speech'. > Handling crimes such as 'abuse of power'. > > These are our fundamental problems. > > If 'Maas Verri' was a Debian Listmaster and conducting the type of > censorship that he clearly would condone - since he condones physical > violence, then he would surely condone the much lesser "effective > measure" (echo of DMCA) of censorship being justified as a "reasonable > means" to the "good ends intended for Debian Project". > > The road to hell is paved by good intentions. > > It is so, so easy to set up power structures and regimes of censorship > and "punishment" which regimes will, inevitably, AT SOME LATER TIME, > be abused against the very thing those regimes and powers were meant > to protect against! > > NSA > > Abu Graib > > Anti-Terror laws: > - removal of right to silence > - removal of right to speak > - removal of right to due process at law > - "right" to be in solitary confinement for many years > - right of a few to "declare individuals as terrorists" > - right of a few to "declare organisations as terrorists" > - right of NSA to clandestine monitor all communications > - right of NSA to disrupt, by their arbitrary will, any > communications (see the NSA leak from Edward Snowden regarding tor and > tor relays - http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-tor-stinks.pdf > you can see I'm not making this stuff up, it is happening). > > We really, really, really don't want to have to say to new debian-user > subscribers in some future point in time "there is clandestine > monitoring of debian-user and posts to it, and the NSA^^^Listmasters > may clandestinely censor you and or any of your posts to the list, > it's out of control at the moment with at least one power-hungry > listmaster who thinks what he's doing is for the good of the project - > no I'm not making this stuff up, it is happening". > > (BTW, if you think it is useful, please post my discussion (I speak > for myself) to debian-private or debian-project - but please do CC me > if you do). > > I really was hoping that this part of the discussion would be CCed to > debian-project etc. > > >>> It should be obvious that I am very strongly opposed to such >>> censorship and to the collecting of power into the hands of a few >>> "behind closed doors". >> >> As far as I understand by this you mean the Listmasters. I'm not sure >> how familiar you are with Debian so I strongly recommend you read the >> constitution: >> >> http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution >> >> The Listmasters are responsible for running the lists. If you disagree >> with some of their decisions you are free to complain, either to the > > It is all very well to be allowed to complain ("you may bring an > action in the Supreme Court against the government, this is your right > and we encourage you to do so"), but up until earlier this morning, I > did not even have any knowledge that censorship was going on!!!!! > > That's not censorship, that's covert clandestine censorship. > > That was completely outside of my knowledge. > > And I'm just a user, a subscriber to debian-user, so I have no vote > regarding whether debian-user is censored or not! > > This is not right! > > These things are neither democratic, nor reasonable nor acceptable to me! > > The debian-developers have franchise! They are allowed to vote about > what power is exercised over debian-user list, and I have no right to > vote on that, but I am a regular poster to, and subscriber to, this > list! > > Can you see the disempowerment of me, Zenaan Harkness, in this actual > and real case? > > True example: There are people who have called for Ralph Mardorph's > posts to debian-user to be censored (perhaps someone can find the > links). > > I VEHEMENTLY object to Ralph's posts to debian-user being censored!!! > (at least all the ones I've read so far) > > I am a subscriber to this list, and I have put my foot-in-mouth > disease sometimes too!! > > I would hope that others on the list would stick up for me, like I > stick up for Ralph! > > It is OUR list! We are the subscribers! We have a duty of care to the > Debian Project! We have a duty of care to each other! We have a duty > of care to protect the openness of our list! > > I have a right to have a say in MY debian-user list! > > The subscribers to the list, are the ones who should be held by the > Debian Project as responsible for decisions about censorship on the > list! Although developers are encouraged to subscribe to debian-user, > some of them don't even do so, and yet they are making the decisions > for us! > > This is a government that is exercising power, without true > representation of the constituents! > > As a foundation principle, that is NOT OK by me! > > >> Project Leader <[email protected]> (even though they are not Delegates >> as I thought -- good thing I checked before spreading misinformation) or >> the Project at large ([email protected] for sensitive >> issues, [email protected] for issues that can/should be >> public). > > And if the DPL is a bit too busy, and/or considers that the particular > post by Ralph (hypothetical :) ) is "borderline" and decides she just > doesn't have time to write a report and intervene to fix the "non > problem"? > > The wheels of "justice"? > > NO. Thank. You. > >> However, I strongly recommend you read the discussions on -project and >> -vote about the new Code of Conduct. In there you'll also find >> discussions about mailing lists bans and how these are or should be >> handled. As far as I understand the rough consensus so far is: >> >> - person banned is informed (reason and duration) > > That must be foundational. I would be amazed if current debian > government decided something other than this. > > Perhaps there ought be a declaration of rights?: > - list subscribers have no right to vote regarding list censorship > - DDs have right to vote regarding list censorship > - censored subscriber has right to speak publicly > - censored subscriber has right to appeal to DPL > > I think we are too far down a slippery slope, but at the least, the > debian government NEEDS to be honest about the rights they are denying > to > such as the first "right" I list just above, the dispositive negative > assertion regarding subscriber (non) rights regarding list censorship > > >> - information to -private only, for oversight and to protect the >> identity of the person banned (i.e. no public shaming) > > I think that the more foundational issues I am trying desperately to > raise, ought be on the table of the debian govnerment (DDs/DPL), such > as the franchise (voting rights) of debian users, regarding their > email lists such as debian-user. > > Because it is clear that DDs, Tech Ctte and Listmasters have the power > and the franchise, the future abusers of power (such as the abhorrent > Maas Verri) will become Listmaster first! > > >>> Right now I'm just wondering if you have some feedback on the email >>> itself, not on the issue of censorship (that will be the public >>> discussion). >> >> It will probably start a huge flame-war on -user with no real benefit, >> please don't do it. > > I think you are right about that. > > I think a few thoughtful individuals is much more useful - I know good > from evil and I know I am with a good conscience. To deny me my > franchise, as a subscriber to debian-user, is a loss for the project! > > I speak similarly for you and others. I speak in the first person to > highlight the issues. > > > ----- > Now, Andrei, I still have not answered your question, I know... In case reader is lost here, Andrei asked me what to actually do about 'very offensive' posts/communication. I don't yet have any sort of clear answer. 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance' - we must not give up our freedoms easily. > It is not an easy one. > > From a very real perspective I say that this particular troll (and I > firmly believe the recent set are all the same person) is very very > useful for us, to highlight more important issues: > - censorship > - franchise > - duty of care > - granting of power > - controlling abuse of power > - punishing abuse of power > > > So Maas Verri abused his power to speak publicly. Should he be > punished? Should he be censored? > > Is it more important to first ask ourselves, who should decide the > answers? And how should they decide? --------- Now another brief, and UNNAMED quote highlights the lack of awareness of the censorship/moderation that is in fact going on: > Sorry, I haven't seen any indication of censorship on the mailing list. > To do so would require a moderated list, with volunteers monitoring it > 24/7. I see no indication of the large number of volunteers doing so. There may be a miscommunication between us, between the debian list administrators and us subscribers, and/ or elsewhere. That's all for now. Others can post their views/copy their words as they see fit. Regards Zenaan _______________________________________________ D-community-offtopic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
