1. 4
  1.  

  2. -6

    I suppose I should tip my hand at this point, and say that as much as I value the source part of open source, I also believe that people participating in open source communities deserve to be free not only to change the code and build the future, but to be free from the brand of arbitrary, mechanized harassment that thrives on unaccountable infrastructure, federated or not. We’d be deluding ourselves if we called systems that are just too dangerous for some people to participate in at all “open” just because you can clone the source and stand up your own copy. And I am absolutely certain that if this free software revolution of ours ends up in a place where asking somebody to participate in open development is indistinguishable from asking them to walk home at night alone, then we’re done. People cannot be equal participants in environments where they are subject to wildly unequal risk. People cannot be equal participants in environments where they are unequally threatened.

    Would James Damore be welcome to openly participate in the open-source development of Mozilla? What about Brandon Eich?

    If not, then all of these fancy words about protecting people from harassment and making Mozilla’s open-source spaces safe for everyone to participate in are lies, and the entire enterprise of switching to an authenticated chat system is an excuse to enforce that everyone who can meaningfully contribute to Mozilla’s open-source code either adheres to or knows to shut up about a specific set of political principles unrelated to the goals of the project.

    If so, then how will Mozilla react when feminist activists (the reference to “walk[ing] home at night” is clearly a signal that Mozilla imagines unrestricted speech in open-source contexts as akin to threatening the physical safety of women, the demographic which feminism cares about) argue loudly that platforming people who hold the political or social views that Damore or Eich do is itself a form of harassment that the system needs to protect them against?

    1. 4

      Brendan Eich, not Brandon.

      If you’re going to ask problematic and incendiary questions at least get the names right.

      1. 4

        You continue to willfully conflate harassment with protected speech; nothing you say is said in good faith or has any value.

        1. 1

          Many of the people who run Mozilla willfully conflate speech with anti-progressive political or social implications as harassment. This is why I am concerned about speech censorship politics with the explicit goal of reducing harassment. I don’t want contributors or potential contributors to open-source projects to worry that if they say things they believe to be accurate about systematic gender differences between men and women like Damore did (or any other topic with anti-progressive political implications), they will be barred from participation in the project on the ostensible grounds of harassing women.

          1. -1

            Many of the people who run Mozilla willfully conflate speech with anti-progressive political or social implications as harassment. This is why I am concerned about speech censorship politics with the explicit goal of reducing harassment. I don’t want contributors or potential contributors to open-source projects to worry that if they say things they believe to be accurate about systematic gender differences between men and women like Damore did (or any other topic with anti-progressive political implications), they will be barred from participation in the project on the ostensible grounds of harassing women.

            1. 1

              Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position.

              I think your fears are wildly overblown.

          2. 3

            Would James Damore be welcome to openly participate in the open-source development of Mozilla? What about Brandon Eich?

            I don’t speak for Mozilla, but in this hypothetical situation I’m assuming that if their contributions were valuable, why not?

            If not, […]

            This is a hypothetical based on another hypothetical.

            1. 3

              Because James Damore had established himself as one who is dedicated to creating unsafe spaces for others who also might want to contribute, like women.

              1. 1

                I see your point. I failed to take other contributor’s probable and understandable reactions into account.