In the spirit of nettime, I took the time to add thoughts to several
of the past contributions.
On 06/12/2016 10:41 PM, Gabriella "Biella" Coleman wrote:
>I certainly like this statement and think it has some valuable
>insights: [1]https://jacobian.org/writing/assholes/
Yes, by creating structures of rule of conduct enforcement we create
the ruleset by which code can be contributed, so people who had fun
being assholes find themselves in the need to play nice in order to be
able to submit code. Given time they probably get nice (and grown-up).
>However, sexual assault is its own special case whereby victims
>don't speak out--understandably--early enough so as to change
>things before problems spiral. This is not unique to this case at
>all.
Yes, but I think that the missing structures are what is missing here.
There needs to be something in-between staying quiet, going to the
police or going public, risking to be accused of defamation. Currently
this information would spread in random gossip, with victims talking
to just a few good friends, creating pockets of warning knowledge
that does not communicate with each other and still does not have
any authority to *do* anything. By creating structures that have the
elected role of getting informed, who have an obligation to keep
quiet and respect the privacy of victims and accused alike, but have
the authority to express a verdict of local range (like recommending
project X to suspend finances for contributor Y - or recommending
conference A not to give a keynote speech to relator Y), without going
into details. And then there should be a way for Y to reach out for an
independent court of appeals. This all happens before ending up at the
state authorities, and can legitimately act without hard evidence.
> And I believe the digital domain is a special challenge for justice,
> harder to deal with than problems Jo Freeman describes.
What I wanted to say in this situation is that the digital domain
is how we met, where we come from and how we interact. Even if the
hurting is happening physically, I would want the structures that
help us protect from future hurting to be available by the means we
are used to. Or would you expect victims to walk up to the office
for harrassment complaints of the EFF or Tor Inc in person, only
because the problem was physical? Of course it would be helpful if the
Internet were secure.
>Why? I think the problem of sexual assault or harassment is a
>society wide problem that many groups seem to have issues dealing
>with appropriately. In academic circles there are endemic and
>persistent problems with harassment and intimidation. In one
>institution I worked in, one professor had so many problematic
>relationships with graduate students (with so many complaints
>levied against him) they disallowed him from advising graduate
>students and moved him to an office so that another professor
>could monitor him. What a shameful and inadequate response
>for both parties and this came from 200 year old institution
>with a team of lawyers who you'd think could handle this a bit
>more fairly. Our society idolizes stars/celebrities and these
>individuals can in turn command a lot of power over victims
>whether it comes in form of sexual violence or harassment
>and whether it is in academia, in journalism, or in hacker
>circles. Thankfully things seem to be changing for the better
>in some academic institutions. A pair of scientists at U
>Chicago and Berkeley have been forced out or stepped down after
>internal investigations. Whereas once the genius professors was
>untouchable, this seems to be less and less the case. Maybe this
>will change too in hacker circles.
Our hacktivist organizations aren't typical boy clubs.. many women
have important structural roles already. It is up to us to elect more
women into the role of not only assisting victims of harrassment, but
also to have the authority to exercise measures when enough evidence
exists.
The structural mistake here could be that frequently such things are
discussed in an assembly if at all, where too many people are supposed
to be informed of far too many private details. This is not respectful
of the privacy of neither victims nor culprits. And it potentiates
the effect of collective shrugging: nobody wants to have enemies,
nobody likes to be the one who in the assembly proposed to cut the
funds to person Y. If the discussion is already about expulsion, it
is happening too late. Justice doesn't need all the people of the
assembly, those who have the elected *job* to take measures have a
wholy different motivation than your average assembly participant.
But it needs that the few who are in charge of justice be trustworthy
enough to be told all the painstaking details, and to be trusted
enough to not be questioned when the verdict comes out, except by a
court of appeals.
