Re: Censorship in Debian

[Eldon Koyle]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 4:46 PM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>
> Daniel Pocock  writes:
>
> > and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience
> > and scientific research.

> In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you
> could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian
> developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized
> human rights (!!).

I think this response was as much an escalation as the initial post.

Daniel, have you contacted the anti-harassment team about the abuse you
have experienced?


> I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet
> Debian.  When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really
> meant that.  But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach
> to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project.

I think this is probably where we should have started.  The initial removal was
by Chris Lamb for "referring to Sage Sharp as an 'it'" in one of his
posts [1].  It
appears that was replaced with "their", which Norbert believed was sufficient to
have his blog re-added, and Chris reverted the commit a few days later.  I think
Chris handled it very well by documenting the issue and providing evidence.

Later, the blog was removed again [2][3] and again[4] by anti-harassment team
members citing an "anti-harassment team decision".  There is no indication of
how much interaction there was with Norbert on the decision (if any).

I think the heart of the issue is that the removal is public, but the
reason does not
appear to be.  Perhaps we need more transparency as to the why when the
anti-harassment team makes a decision as drastic as removing content, along
with the evidence?  Then, at least we could know what we are arguing about here.

AFAICT, rule number 2 ("try not to annoy people")[5] for planet debian could be
the justification for removal (I'm assuming the issue at hand is the same post
that caused the initial removal, but I don't see it referenced in his
blog feed[6]
anymore).  A cursory glance at the feed didn't yield anything appalling to my
sensibilities, but I'm not good at finding a single offensive word in an entire
blog.


> > Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way
> > across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening
> > messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the
> > physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former.  Those
> > people should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> Yeah, no shit.  Your lack of awareness that *you* are that person who
> should be ashamed of yourself because that's what *you* just did is
> honestly mind-blowing.

Bad behavior does not condone more bad behavior.  This comment seems
a little mean-spirited.  It is OK to disagree with how he brought his issue up,
but being abusive to someone because you think they were abusive just
makes the problem worse.

A lot of technical people are not that great with social interaction
(I believe it is
the reason many people are drawn to those fields; for me computers are more
predictable than people).  I think we would do ourselves a great disservice by
not recognizing this and just pushing people away for the crime of not knowing
how to interact with others.  We should be teaching them instead, by example
if nothing else.

[1] 
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/216930f1f3f906ef4cc28457b94d10ba844e3074
[2] 
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/99662c1548fac57813e5288002e3c6eeccf25ec6
[3] 
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/d2d7125b53dc4a2e832a5780013e29518c2420bc
[4] 
https://salsa.debian.org/planet-team/config/commit/04651823388de3a573d25158b2d59dce62a24540
[5] https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian
[6] http://www.preining.info/blog/feed/?lang=en

-- 
Eldon Koyle

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock  writes:
> 
> > I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening
> > to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes
> > to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. 
> > I would encourage people to watch the video.
> 
> > At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a
> > Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian.  Chilling.
> 
> > I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel
> > discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been
> > censored.  Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind.
> 
> Entirely apart from the merits of the rest of your discussion of whether
> the project should republish this blog using project resources, this
> framing is appalling and blatantly dishonest.  It intentionally conflates
> issues of government censorship and journalistic freedom that have cost
> people their lives with a dispute over whether Debian should *republish*
> content that has not been censored, restricted, or removed in any way, let
> alone been subject to threats of physical violence.
> 
> I object in the strongest possible terms to this framing of your argument.
> You should be profoundly ashamed for choosing this path of malicious
> exaggeration phrased as an attack on the work of fellow developers.  It
> was completely unbecoming of a Debian project member.

Thank you for illustrating so well why Daniel's words were spot on.  Your
response is exactly why censorship must not be tolerated in Debian.


-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Ivan was a worldly man: born in St. Petersburg, raised in
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Petrograd, lived most of his life in Leningrad, then returned
⠈⠳⣄ to the city of his birth to die.

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Gunnar Wolf]

Daniel Pocock dijo [Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:31:46PM +]:
> Hi all,

Hello Daniel,

I have to chime in here fully in support of what Russ, Steve and Paul
have said. Your message starts as inflammatory and as far as possible
from any attempt to cool down issues. It starts by accusing, by
likening incomparable issues.

> At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a
> Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian.  Chilling.

Censorship is prohibiting you to speak your mind. Norbert is able to
speak his mind - Only not using Debian's name for it.

Why was his blog removed? Was it the post you link to? Or the several
posts where he discusses games? (are they free?) Or something
completely different? I do not know - But in any case, you should have
started by *knowing* what set off the a-h team for this decision. 

> I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel
> discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been
> censored.  Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind.

An assassination committed in a diplomatic legation with possible
involvement of the highest possible authority in a nation, or even the
murder of a person by unknown people and a country refusing to further
pursue the investigation on the issue, are in any way comparable to
kicking a blog out from an aggregator?

Please take a couple of deep breaths. Inflating the issue so much is
not helping the cause you are trying to push. Just the opposite.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:18:51PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>If people want to pursue an anti-harassment objective in good faith,
>then please start by realizing the existing team and their approach
>needs careful examination, they need to make it a priority to put at the
>front of their mind the welfare of every single person they come into
>contact with, even if they don't understand or can't related to that
>person's behaviour and they probably need to engage outside expertise
>both for the benefit of the community and their own state of mind.

Have you actually epoken to the anti-harassment team to enquire about
their actions and supporting evidence before calling their methods and
motivations into doubt here?

Also: not wishing to pile on, but I also believe that you linking
assassinations to the actions of the a-h team is downright toxic and
you should apologise.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

I concur with Russ in the strongest of terms.

I, too have no idea why a blog was removed, but I think we absolutely
can and should if the post crosses lines.

We, as a group of individuals working on a project together with
shared resources working to maintain a constructive atmosphere must
never be conflated with a Government censoring speech.

We are not a Government. Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have
a healthy community with Government censorship, and conflating a blog
being removed from project resources with the killing of a journalist.
It cheapens the death of those who are killed by repressive regimes
fighting for their freedoms.

   Paul

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 6:46 PM Russ Allbery  wrote:
>
> Daniel Pocock  writes:
>
> > and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience
> > and scientific research.
>
> You decided to distort a political issue that many of us feel strongly
> about to attack a policy around what to republish in project-owned forums,
> which is only on a continuum with that issue if you look for it with a
> telescope.  You did this in a way designed to provoke strong feelings and
> create moral absolutes rather than start a conversation, and you did this
> knowing full well that you were attacking a specific team inside Debian
> composed, like all Debian teams, of overworked volunteer members.  You did
> this without the slightest attempt to extend an assumption of good will or
> allow for the possibility there are further things going on that you don't
> know about, and you did so with such pathetically sloppy and incomplete
> research that even *I* know you are leaving out substantial background,
> and I haven't been trying to follow this saga.
>
> In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you
> could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian
> developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized
> human rights (!!).
>
> That you cannot understand how completely absurd this is means that it is
> futile to try to argue this point with you on the merits.
>
> There *is* an underlying project debate here that is a real debate, namely
> the rules for participation and republication in project forums.  I think
> it's a debate we've had to the point of absurdity, but I'm not horribly
> surprised that people want to still have it, and if that had been all your
> message had been, I would have sit on my hands and not added to the noise.
>
> But you saw an opportunity to artificially strengthen your debate stance
> by comparing the Debian anti-harassment team to assassins (!!) and you
> seem completely oblivious to why this is utterly unacceptable in
> collective discussion within a project of colleagues, peers, and friends.
>
> I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet
> Debian.  When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really
> meant that.  But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach
> to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project.
>
> If you want to have a debate about the decision of a team in Debian, you
> have an obligation to the project to conduct that debate with a certain
> basic level of mutual respect.  Asking you to not compare your fellow
> project members to assassins does not seem like a high bar!  If you aren't
> going to do that, I for one am quite happy to make this argument about
> *your* behavior, which was appalling and utterly toxic to supporting the
> community of a volunteer collective project.
>
> > Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way
> > across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening
> > messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the
> > physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former.  Those
> > people should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> Yeah, no shit.  Your lack of awareness that *you* are that person who
> should be ashamed of yourself because that's what *you* just did is
> honestly mind-blowing.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   
>


-- 
:wq

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Daniel Pocock]

On 20/12/18 23:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock  writes:
>
>> and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience
>> and scientific research.
> You decided to distort a political issue that many of us feel strongly
> about to attack a policy around what to republish in project-owned forums,
> which is only on a continuum with that issue if you look for it with a
> telescope.  You did this in a way designed to provoke strong feelings and
> create moral absolutes rather than start a conversation, and you did this
> knowing full well that you were attacking a specific team inside Debian
> composed, like all Debian teams, of overworked volunteer members.  You did

Please don't misrepresent me like that.  I am not calling on anybody to
attack any team, I'm calling on people to be assertive in defending
Norbert and other individuals who have been singled out.

> this without the slightest attempt to extend an assumption of good will or
> allow for the possibility there are further things going on that you don't
> know about, and you did so with such pathetically sloppy and incomplete


The fact that people don't know about certain things going on suggests
the project leadership is deviating from the social contract.  Let's get
the policy about Planet in the open or choose to have two Planets, e.g.
"planet-curated.debian.org" and "planet-uncensored.debian.org" and each
person can choose which one they want to read.


> research that even *I* know you are leaving out substantial background,
> and I haven't been trying to follow this saga.
>
> In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you
> could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian
> developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized
> human rights (!!).

Other people have chosen to turn up the temperature.  I felt my post was
both restrained and lukewarm in comparison.

I can see that this has been both shocking and surprising to some people
and I sincerely regret that.  I would ask you to consider it from my
point of view and from some of the abusive communications I have
received recently, they are the things that have established my frame or
reference right now.


>
> That you cannot understand how completely absurd this is means that it is
> futile to try to argue this point with you on the merits.
>
> There *is* an underlying project debate here that is a real debate, namely
> the rules for participation and republication in project forums.  I think
> it's a debate we've had to the point of absurdity, but I'm not horribly
> surprised that people want to still have it, and if that had been all your
> message had been, I would have sit on my hands and not added to the noise.
>
> But you saw an opportunity to artificially strengthen your debate stance
> by comparing the Debian anti-harassment team to assassins (!!) and you
> seem completely oblivious to why this is utterly unacceptable in
> collective discussion within a project of colleagues, peers, and friends.

Without going into detail, the actions of certain figures over the last
3 months are in no way comparable to those of colleagues, peers or
friends.  The people who initiated those communications have set the
tone for this debate through their arrogance, impatience and ego, not me.


> I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet
> Debian.  When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really
> meant that.  But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach
> to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project.


ditto for the messages certain people have sent to me and other volunteers.

Given my own personal circumstances this year, "deeply hurtful" is very
much an understatement when assessing certain communications I received,
especially considering their timing.


> If you want to have a debate about the decision of a team in Debian, you
> have an obligation to the project to conduct that debate with a certain
> basic level of mutual respect.  Asking you to not compare your fellow
> project members to assassins does not seem like a high bar!  If you aren't

The bar has been taken even lower than you think and I am not the one
who put it there.

It is in our social contract that we do not hide our problems but I
would ask people to forgive me for not laying out the sheer brutality of
it in all it's gory detail right now.  Doing so would compromise the
privacy of multiple people outside the project.

> going to do that, I for one am quite happy to make this argument about
> *your* behavior, which was appalling and utterly toxic to supporting the
> community of a volunteer collective project.

Please don't make this personal.  Notice I didn't choose to name people
individually.

>> Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way
>> across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening
>> messages 

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Daniel Pocock  writes:

> and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience
> and scientific research.

You decided to distort a political issue that many of us feel strongly
about to attack a policy around what to republish in project-owned forums,
which is only on a continuum with that issue if you look for it with a
telescope.  You did this in a way designed to provoke strong feelings and
create moral absolutes rather than start a conversation, and you did this
knowing full well that you were attacking a specific team inside Debian
composed, like all Debian teams, of overworked volunteer members.  You did
this without the slightest attempt to extend an assumption of good will or
allow for the possibility there are further things going on that you don't
know about, and you did so with such pathetically sloppy and incomplete
research that even *I* know you are leaving out substantial background,
and I haven't been trying to follow this saga.

In other words, you immediately turned the temperature up as high as you
could go and called on other people to attack your fellow Debian
developers on the grounds that their work is a violation of UN-recognized
human rights (!!).

That you cannot understand how completely absurd this is means that it is
futile to try to argue this point with you on the merits.

There *is* an underlying project debate here that is a real debate, namely
the rules for participation and republication in project forums.  I think
it's a debate we've had to the point of absurdity, but I'm not horribly
surprised that people want to still have it, and if that had been all your
message had been, I would have sit on my hands and not added to the noise.

But you saw an opportunity to artificially strengthen your debate stance
by comparing the Debian anti-harassment team to assassins (!!) and you
seem completely oblivious to why this is utterly unacceptable in
collective discussion within a project of colleagues, peers, and friends.

I have no idea personally what set off Norbert's removal from Planet
Debian.  When I said irrespective of the merits of your argument, I really
meant that.  But *this* bothers me far more: this kind of brutal approach
to Debian politics is hostile, nasty, and deeply hurtful to the project.

If you want to have a debate about the decision of a team in Debian, you
have an obligation to the project to conduct that debate with a certain
basic level of mutual respect.  Asking you to not compare your fellow
project members to assassins does not seem like a high bar!  If you aren't
going to do that, I for one am quite happy to make this argument about
*your* behavior, which was appalling and utterly toxic to supporting the
community of a volunteer collective project.

> Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way
> across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening
> messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the
> physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former.  Those
> people should be ashamed of themselves.

Yeah, no shit.  Your lack of awareness that *you* are that person who
should be ashamed of yourself because that's what *you* just did is
honestly mind-blowing.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Daniel Pocock]

On 20/12/18 22:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Pocock  writes:
>
>> I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening
>> to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes
>> to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. 
>> I would encourage people to watch the video.
>> At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a
>> Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian.  Chilling.
>> I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel
>> discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been
>> censored.  Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind.
> Entirely apart from the merits of the rest of your discussion of whether
> the project should republish this blog using project resources, this

If people want to clarify the way Planet can be used, they can create a
policy and maybe put it to a vote.  Retrospectively sanctioning people
without strong grounds based on policy is not right though.

People may expect a newsletter or another official publication to be
curated to some degree but I always had the impression that both Planet
and packaging are at the discretion of the individual developers. 
Personally, I welcome the diversity of views there and if it is going to
be curated now, I would volunteer to host an uncensored alternative to
Planet for those with similar feelings.

> framing is appalling and blatantly dishonest.  It intentionally conflates
> issues of government censorship and journalistic freedom that have cost
> people their lives with a dispute over whether Debian should *republish*
> content that has not been censored, restricted, or removed in any way, let
> alone been subject to threats of physical violence.
>
> I object in the strongest possible terms to this framing of your argument.
> You should be profoundly ashamed for choosing this path of malicious
> exaggeration phrased as an attack on the work of fellow developers.  It
> was completely unbecoming of a Debian project member.
>
and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience
and scientific research.

Having been rear ended by a utility van, thrown off a motorbike half way
across a roundabout and having also received abusive and threatening
messages from people within the Debian community, I feel that the
physical pain caused by the latter was more than the former.  Those
people should be ashamed of themselves.

Research confirms[1] this phenomenon.

If people want to pursue an anti-harassment objective in good faith,
then please start by realizing the existing team and their approach
needs careful examination, they need to make it a priority to put at the
front of their mind the welfare of every single person they come into
contact with, even if they don't understand or can't related to that
person's behaviour and they probably need to engage outside expertise
both for the benefit of the community and their own state of mind.

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/roger-covin/cyber-bullying-suicide_b_3996518.html

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Daniel Pocock  writes:

> I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening
> to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes
> to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. 
> I would encourage people to watch the video.

> At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a
> Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian.  Chilling.

> I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel
> discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been
> censored.  Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind.

Entirely apart from the merits of the rest of your discussion of whether
the project should republish this blog using project resources, this
framing is appalling and blatantly dishonest.  It intentionally conflates
issues of government censorship and journalistic freedom that have cost
people their lives with a dispute over whether Debian should *republish*
content that has not been censored, restricted, or removed in any way, let
alone been subject to threats of physical violence.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this framing of your argument.
You should be profoundly ashamed for choosing this path of malicious
exaggeration phrased as an attack on the work of fellow developers.  It
was completely unbecoming of a Debian project member.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:31:46PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening
> to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes
> to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. 
> I would encourage people to watch the video.
> 
> At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a
> Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian.  Chilling.
[...]
> Looking at Debian's code of conduct[9], there is no compelling violation
> of the code in Norbert's writing.  Indeed, the only violation of the
> code of conduct may be the act of censorship itself: the very first
> point tells us "inevitably there will be people with whom you may
> disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that, but even so,
> remain respectful."
[...]
> Even without contemplating the code of conduct, censorship has a
> sinister effect on discussion.

I agree with you wholeheartly.  Censorship is at the root, or very close to
the roots, of pretty much any violation of freedom I can think of.


-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Ivan was a worldly man: born in St. Petersburg, raised in
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Petrograd, lived most of his life in Leningrad, then returned
⠈⠳⣄ to the city of his birth to die.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Censorship in Debian

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

I was recently at the UN forum on business and human rights, listening
to an Iranian dissident talk[1] about the extremes that his country goes
to in censoring and silencing people who don't agree with their rulers. 
I would encourage people to watch the video.

At that very same moment, the anti-harassment team were censoring[2] a
Debian Developer's blog from Planet Debian.  Chilling.

I actually looked at Planet shortly after attending that panel
discussion and immediately noticed that Norbert Preining[3] had been
censored.  Disappearances of Khashoggi[4] and Kamphuis[5] came to mind.

At that moment, being surrounded by experts on human rights and freedom
of expression who may have far more experience than most of us in
Debian, I did a quick survey.  I couldn't find one person who supported
the actions of the censors.

Some of Norbert's blogs make people think, but they appear to be
overwhelmingly motivated by legitimate issues and his recent blog
thanking[6] Lars[7] appeared to end in an upbeat and sincere manner. 
Whether I agree with either of them or not, I'd like to take this
opportunity to wholeheartedly thank both Lars and Norbert for their
contributions as fellow Debian Developers and fellow bloggers.

Norbert had also made political statements[8] concerning the way codes
of conduct are used in our communities.  People who speak up like this
are frequent targets for political plots, protecting these people is
imperative.

Looking at Debian's code of conduct[9], there is no compelling violation
of the code in Norbert's writing.  Indeed, the only violation of the
code of conduct may be the act of censorship itself: the very first
point tells us "inevitably there will be people with whom you may
disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that, but even so,
remain respectful."

Even without contemplating the code of conduct, censorship has a
sinister effect on discussion.  People notice when somebody disappears
and they become hesitant to speak about problems, whether they are
technical issues or social issues.  I feel compelled to speak up but as
I write this, I contemplate the risk that some people will try the same
tactics as the Iranians, censoring me, threatening me or dragging my
name through the mud.  If they try that, they may give each other a pat
on the back but they don't fool our community at large.

Nonetheless, article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[10]
clearly states that no institution should act in any way to destroy the
rights enshrined in the UDHR.  The definition of an "institution" there
clearly applies to a group with the influence of Debian, it is not only
for states and courts.

Wake up, people.  If we are repressing members of our own organization
like this, we haven't got a hope in hell of achieving our mission[11]
for society at large.

The UN calls on us to "stand up 4 human rights" on this 70th anniversary
of that declaration.  You can do that now by standing up for Norbert. 
It takes minutes for anybody, Developer or not, to submit a merge
request in Salsa[12] to uncomment his blog.  You can also email the
Debian Project Leader, lea...@debian.org

If you know people in other organizations concerned with human rights,
discuss Norbert's case with them and get their opinion, just as I did.

You can't pick and choose human rights, having some freedoms and not
others, the declaration even implies this too.  Anybody who tries to do
that is on a very slippery slope indeed.

In my role as a representative in another organization and in my
extensive work with Debian, various people have approached me about
incidents of censorship and overbearing efforts to control participation
in the free software community.  It is far more widespread than many
people realize.  It only happens because people fail to speak up.  For
example, an FSFE volunteer was censored at 34C3 after distributing
leaflets questioning Google's funding to FSFE.  There is increasing fear
that "anti-harassment" efforts are being used as cover for political
agendas, they are operating in a bubble and diverging significantly from
what would be acceptable in any other organization or field of
endeavour.  They post big newsletters to debian-devel-announce boasting
about their work but many people feel those reports reek of gloating and
one-upmanship.

On a technical level, we may want to consider whether Planet is fit for
purpose: if we want to showcase best practice in creating a platform
where freedom of expression can thrive and remain immune to abuses,
should we simply make more efforts to migrate to a decentralized tool,
eliminating the risk that any subgroup or faction within Debian will be
able to carry on like that now or in future?

As somebody more famous once said, "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I
Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It".  I welcome responses to
this topic whether you share my concerns or not but if nobody cares
about this stuff, please tell me,