1. 77

Last year I asked for ideas and tips in Lobsters for organizing a conference. Those ideas and tips helped me a lot. Last year I invited a member of Lobsters to be a speaker. He traveled to Argentina and he gave a great talk. This year I contacted another Lobsters member and he is taking a long trip to Buenos Aires to give a talk too! I am deeply thankful to the Lobsters community.

In this case, after discussing it a lot with other members of the community and people of my team I decided to share a not so happy story of what is happening to us.

  1. 27

    At this point I found out this man is an internationally renowned information security specialist.

    This whole incident made more sense to me once I saw that the malicious actor is a shining star in the bad-boy security community. Sorry you are left to deal with this, @unbalancedparentheses!

    1. 3

      I’m itching to know who this bad actor is. Can’t find any traces.

      1. 7

        There are traces that are not particularly hard to find. I am not posting them here out of respect for the author.

      2. 2

        A few things happened since this was posted. I can’t still publish it, but I am amazed by the energy this person has.

        Meanwhile I can show some of the things this person does: @InjusticeWall. He has some real mental issue with women.

      3. 11

        I’m contemplating organizing a conference myself…

        …the topic of which, I guess, will attract hate from conservative reactionaries for whom the social status quo is perfect (or needs rolling back to an earlier decade)….

        Any tips on how to avoid such shit storms?

        1. 13

          You got to pick a side. The whole point of the shit storms is to intimidate people, after all.

          1. -6

            A good start would probably be to prevent such an event from becoming an echo chamber for a one-sided rhetoric. This is a problem that can be found on both sides. Describing the purpose of the conference, keep it general and open for diverse opinions and be brave to invite and accept speakers that are such “conservative reactionaries”.

            From a philosophical standpoint: If you are sure that one position is definitely superior and stronger in a discussion over another, you are not inhibited to give this position a voice, under the condition that this voice is reasonable and argues fairly. To give an example, if you had a conference on the challenges of democracy, you would consequently not be scared to invite a monarchist. Monarchy has some arguments against democracy, without doubt, but overall in a diverse discussion democracy would surely prevail and come out as a victor.

            To put it shortly: Keep an open mind and express it in the way you structure and advertise the conference you are contemplating to organize. I wish you all the best in your efforts!

            1. 34

              I feel the need to point out that FRIGN is part of a project where people call their computers “wolfsschanze” and had no proper response to having torchlight walks in Nuremberg.

              Please keep that in mind when taking advice about “conservative reactionaries” here.

              https://twitter.com/pid_eins/status/1113738764797534208 https://lobste.rs/s/nf3xgg/i_am_leaving_llvm#c_yoghmo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%27s_Lair

              1. 11

                TIL:

                I remember seeing the torchlight pictures on their conference page and thinking, “hey that looks like fun!” I mean, I’ve read most of Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (among other things), and I still wasn’t aware of the association. So I might be willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt. But when you combine that with “wolfsschanze,” it doesn’t look good.

                I guess I can only hope that they are “just” trolls, which would be in their nature, as far as I can tell. But I don’t know how to tell the difference between them.

                1. 3

                  I recommend reading the copy of the Daily Stormer’s style guide which was obtained by the Huffington Post a couple years ago now. It goes into great detail on the strategic importance of seeming to be joking, while advocating genocide, as well as on the way to do it. I would also note that this was a strategy employed by the Nazi party in the 1930s, as well. My conclusion is that it makes no difference whether anyone who jokes about genocide actually wants to follow through or not, nor can we expect to learn which it is. We all have to learn to act in ways that make sense either way.

                  The style guide is extremely upsetting reading though, so I also recommend that you make sure you’re in a safe place and have your loved ones nearby when you look at it. It has more slurs than I care to count, but that’s just the start.

                  1. 2

                    Thanks for linking this! I indeed hadn’t seen that before. Over the long weekend, I read the style guide in full. It was quite depressing, and it does sound like it is intentionally difficult to tell the difference between the trolls and the people who are seriously genocidal.

                    My conclusion is that it makes no difference whether anyone who jokes about genocide actually wants to follow through or not, nor can we expect to learn which it is. We all have to learn to act in ways that make sense either way.

                    Agreed I think, in that we can’t actually know. Still though, I hold out hope that these people are trolling. Regardless of whether we can tell the difference or not, I would rather people joke about genocide instead of seriously believing it should be done. (If forced to choose between two pretty horrific options.) This is in the “hope for humanity” sense, although I recognize others might not want to make this distinction based on actual harm caused.

                    1. 1

                      Given how many times a genocide has happened (lots) and how often anyone I know jokes about it (never), I’m going to find it hard to assume trolling.

                      1. 1

                        I think you missed my point. :-/ Sorry. And I don’t have the energy to discuss this with you. Not worth it. Nuance is completely lost in discussions like these in my experience.

                        1. 1

                          Fair enough :)

                2. [Comment removed by moderator alynpost: Prune off-topic thread.]

                  1. [Comment removed by moderator alynpost: Prune off-topic thread.]

                    1. [Comment removed by moderator alynpost: Prune off-topic thread.]

                  2. [Comment removed by moderator alynpost: Prune off-topic thread.]

                  3. 3

                    If you read history, you’d know if you actually lived under Ye Olde Absolute Monarchy, you’d be terrified to invite a monarchist to discuss the challenges of democracy, as come morning you’d be in the tower of London watching the headsman sharpening his axe.

                    My idea for this conference is “How to Human”, we are all (myself included) remarkable Bad at being Human.

                    Whether you look at our health, our social interactions, our understanding of our own biology, at how we maintain, measure or monitor ourselves…. we’re just Plain Bad at it.

                    Some people seem to feel very threatened and hence Angry at the thought that social interactions are in dire need of reform…. probably because the current paradigm is making most interactions work in their favour and dread a different future.

                    So I’m not sure what an “Open Mind” means in the presence of someone who feels attacked and threatened by the mere fact that the question has even been asked.

                    1. 1

                      This is a beautiful debate to be had in abstract, but it’s very relevant who exactly discusses which exact question.

                      “Just asking the question” is also a standard technique to avoid accountability in many settings.

                3. 7

                  From everything that I see on the sidelines, organizing community speakers in the tech scene seems really hard. I hear about people with really big heads, as well as people who then like to use their perceived clout to take advantage of others, professionally or otherwise. Then you’ll be getting people who have had to deal with this and are then jaded about it, and then the MRA and other trolls who will react, etc. Obviously this isn’t everyone, but yeah - seems really hard. I don’t envy organizers.

                  1. 8

                    I’ve organized community-run software conferences (read: not paid for by any one company or consortium) with 100 to 1,700 attendees yearly or more for seven years, and other events for 150+ people yearly since 2002, save one year that I took off to focus on finishing college. I’ve had a few things go awry but nothing ever this detractive, and hopefully I never will. I (really, we) take lots of precautions and stay up to date on the news around the events community.

                    The thing I ask the most of everyone involved – organizers, attendees, speakers, sponsors, vendors, security guards, union convention center workers, everyone – is to be kind. You can be firm. You can be loud or quiet. It’s difficult to understand all of the moving parts that make a conference happen. It’s difficult to empathize when something seems to be on fire. Assume the best intentions. Thank someone every chance you get. Criticism should be constructive or remain factual and kind when you have no suggestion to offer. Above all else, be kind.

                    1. 8

                      We did a mistake. We did not take enough precautions. People that worked with me knew about other issues that this people had. This year I wasn’t in the details of checking every speaker. I should have asked people if the speakers had any big issue with anybody before.

                      1. 3

                        don’t blame yourself; any other day and in any other situation your actions would be reasonable.

                        1. 0

                          This might be a stupid idea but have you considered re-engaging these (obviously hostile, childish) people and asking them what would satisfy them? Could there be some kind of compromise or would they only accept re-enstatment as a conference speaker and your sincere apology🙄🙄🙄?

                          It might be crazy to consider “giving in” like this but I wonder if maybe they might be more reasonable with face-to-face dialogue. AFAICT it’s probably harmless to try.

                          1. 1

                            Sure, we did think about that and we are still trying to do it. I have no problem to “give in”. I only want this to stop and continue doing productive things. On the long run with the legal justice I think things will get better. In the meantime: https://twitter.com/unbalancedparen/status/1131214746731077632

                        2. 2

                          This makes sense. And I wouldn’t be surprised if most conferences don’t have this behavior, the news is only filled with news-worthy things (so I only hear about the bad cases). It sounds like you treat this thoughtfully, which is really awesome.

                      2. 4

                        I’m sorry this happened (and is happening) to you. It’s clear that you did the right thing here.

                        1. 5

                          We are organizing the suckless conference this year and I personally can confirm the logistical challenges associated with it, as the author also mentioned, even though the slcon may be on a smaller scale.

                          Regarding the other problem mentioned, while I personally care more about the technical aspect of tech conferences, I must really say that it’s in the organizer’s discretion (@unbalancedparentheses in this case) to decide who may attend/talk and who may not, even if one may disagree with the selection process.

                          In general it’s just politics, on both sides, and we should be all more relaxed and stop with the Twitter trench warfare and defamation. What is often forgotten is that these conferences are organized unsalaried and in peoples’ free time. Logically, those that organize it have thus the freedom to shape it as they like.

                          1. 2

                            Thanks for the comment. I agree with you. I am trying to get better at that. We should be more tolerant to different ideas, ideologies and different people.

                            Great! I am fan and user of suckless software. I will try to go to the conference.

                          2. 6

                            So after reading this I’m like … okay? I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with this, there’s no concrete information, no “lessons learned”, or anything else. I learned pretty much nothing from reading it, and it just seems venting about an encounter with a toxic person.

                            I’m sorry that happened to you, and writing down things like that can be good for you, but it doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that can/should be discussed on the internet.

                            1. 19

                              I get you. I have read other articles similar to this one and in many cases I did not learn anything, in others I learnt a lot. I never expected to write something like this. However after all this happened I had to explain to many people, groups what happened. People that I don’t know called me and told me they had similar issues with the security specialist! I was and am tired of explaining everything. In addition to that yesterday I was again trolled by him. I was tired and decided to write something that I can send to somebody that asks me for details. I know will this will be helpful to some people. I am really sorry if I made you waste time. I really tried to add some type of disclaimer so that anybody that is not interested in something like this did not waste time reading it.

                              I also wanted to avoid being dramatic. I am really not trying to get attention with this. This is BAD attention. There are way more important things for anybody that a conference’s problema but I decided that it was the best thing to do based on all the things that are happening.

                              1. 5

                                If only lobsters supported blocklists it would be useful for identifying “reverse racism oh no!” fools as evidenced by the two -10 comments below.

                                1. 20

                                  If the community decides it needs block lists, I’ll probably leave. I don’t want to be part of a place with the level of sustained hostility that implies.

                                  1. 10

                                    It’s not even about hostility necessarily. I just find that certain users consistently post garbage comments. It’d be nice to just not read it at all.

                                    1. 6

                                      In the case of this article, the downvoting was enough; the garbage comments are at the bottom of the page and hidden until you click the + to show them. But yeah, that isn’t always the case.

                                    2. 2

                                      I agree. We can all see what this did to Twitter and the development of echo chambers (on both sides of the political spectrum).

                                      1. 3

                                        I disagree with almost everything you’ve said in reply to this post, but I agree about that. Twitter’s design is worse than Reddit’s, which is a real achievement considering how bad Reddit is for politically charged discussions. It creates echo chambers, where people who slightly deviate from your own opinions become invisible, but it does nothing to stop the real harassment, who can manufacture sockpuppets quite easily (unlike Reddit, there’s no community moderators to hide the harassing content before you see it).

                                      2. 2

                                        Agreed. I think blocklists are a dangerous and entirely unnecessary tool. If someone is misbehaving and trolling constantly, there are probably common sense rules that can be pointed at (e.g. “no harassing users, no doxxing, no threats, no spam, etc.”), that can be used as justification to block their account (after a warning). Downvotes for everything else. That is enough in virtually all circumstances in the case of online forums. Blocklists, OTOH, I have never seen lead to anything good. They are easily abused, and are practically guaranteed to generate groupthink.

                                        1. 2

                                          I’m super happy that somebody finally posted a response that more-or-less summarizes my objections, so I didn’t have to write it. :) I was a bit surprised, though I shouldn’t have been, that the first few responses were coming from other angles that I didn’t think got at the fundamental thing.

                                    3. 2

                                      I think the lesson learned is to understand the risks you may face organizing a conference. A lot of the logistical risks are assumed and documented, but this is a facet of the experience that might catch you by surprise. A part of this gives perspective on an approach to dealing with the scenario.

                                      Some of it is venting, sure, but i do think there’s value in hearing these personal stories. Fair enough if it didn’t resonate as anything you needed to know, but it seems clear that it struck a chord with others

                                    4. 3

                                      Copied for those whose screen would otherwise be obscured by floating top and bottom bars:

                                      ===

                                      This time I am not writing an interview or a technical post. I am writing about a series of events that took place in the context of the conference organization which exposed me to a situation that is now out of control despite my efforts to avoid conflict. The impact these events are having oblige me to write this article as a tool to clarify what happened.

                                      I expect this specific case illustrates the type of things that might happen to anyone out there trying to create something for the community. I hope the article it is not too boring, I want to give more precise information but I can’t yet. In the end, the truth comes out and people show their true colors.

                                      Reach me via twitter at @unbalancedparen if you have any comments.

                                      Why organize a conference?

                                      Organizing a conference involves a great expenditure of time and money. True, sponsors make up for a big part of financing, and ticket sales help. Still, conferences tend to net to a loss.

                                      Then why do we do it? Because they are also an enormous source of satisfaction. For a couple of days, conferences generate a vibrant community, where people have the opportunity to grow and learn together, renew passion for their work and create relationships that will evolve in new projects that will last far beyond the scope of the conference.

                                      What are the usual problems that appear while organizing a conference?

                                      Anyone that has organized an event of this scale knows how hard it is to sell tickets, publicise, organize logistics, get sponsors, look for accomodation, buy airfare tickets, coordinate catering, pay for insurance, arrange stands and manage audio and video recording. Also, differences within the organizing team and diverse points of view will most likely appear. Basically, “whatever can go wrong, will go wrong”, and this is quite a challenge during the preproduction and during the conference itself.

                                      What has been our experience so far?

                                      Until now, my team and I have organized several meetups and participated in lots of conferences; but only last year we took the plunge and organized our first software conference, called BuzzConf. This will be the second time we started a new telecommunication conference called Zruput.

                                      We learned how to deal with the unexpected: flights were cancelled, the catering messed up the gluten-free food, the cell phone of one of our speakers went missing during the conference, the audio and video recording of the talks failed and some sponsors paid months after the conference. Despite these inconveniences, which are normal, it was an incredible experience and we enjoyed it greatly.

                                      We were able to bring people who develop Linux’s kernel, who are part of the Rust language core team, who make important contributions to distributed systems, people who launch satellites, among other things. The people we met and the things we learned broadened our horizons. This year we are expecting computer scientists that were involved in the design of Haskell, that created an amazing package managers and that implemented Python packages, used by hedge funds, for statistical modeling. We know we are privileged.

                                      What happened this year?

                                      My team and I were contacted by different people to warn us that they were uncomfortable with the participation of a speaker and her boyfriend in our conference. Sadly, I can’t go into details until the legal issue is over. This communication took us by surprise since we had performed a basic background check on the chosen speakers to avoid these kinds of issues. Like many of you who are reading this article, I am skeptical of what people I don’t know say over the Internet. I initially hesitated to do something based upon these comments when my team and I discussed the matter.

                                      When you are in a difficult situation, the most reasonable thing to do is to search for the help of those who can provide knowledge and experience, so we consulted on what we should do with different people on what to do. Several people who knew both of them confirmed that they had had problems with them in the past. We also talked with the organizers of other conferences and with dev that are part of gender groups focalized in technology and all of them recommended us to take distance from them.

                                      This was how we finally decided that the best thing to do was to inform the speaker she wasn’t going to be a member of the conference. It was a difficult decision in which we prioritized the participation of the public that had reached out to us while also knowing that many people, especially women, wouldn’t come to the conference if we did nothing about this situation. Neither I nor the rest of the organization wanted to create a problematic situation, we were just trying to solve a difficult conflict in the best possible way.

                                      Therefore, on April 25, 2019, I, along with an employee of my company, communicated to her our decision in a meeting held in a place of her choice. She took it badly. We knew it was hard news to take on. Nevertheless, we didn’t expect a threatening reaction followed by several emails, Twitter DMs, persistent phone calls and Whatsapp messages. She even texted my girlfriend, one of the organizers of the conference, whose telephone number is not public and wasn’t given to her at any moment. At the same time, she started contacting other speakers of the conference.

                                      Problems escalate

                                      A few hours later, I was contacted via Whatsapp by a person who told me he needed to meet me to talk about the conference because he had a big problem which could be solved by talking. That person identified himself. I didn’t know who he was and I replied that I had no problem speaking but I didn’t know how I could help him.

                                      At around the same time I got a message from an employee of my company who told me that the same person had contacted a speaker of our conference and requested a meeting with him. The speaker confirmed this to me and told me he had felt uncomfortable with the way in which this person had written to him. When this happened, I asked around and acquaintances of mine told me that this person was the boyfriend of the speaker we had decided wouldn’t be a part of the conference.

                                      At this point I found out this man is an internationally renowned information security specialist. He found vulnerabilities in known operating systems and privacy-oriented messaging platforms. I was learning all this in the spur of the moment.

                                      It was late in the day, but before I went to sleep I found an anonymous threat which stated private information about me would be published. I can’t confirm who the author was, as it was anonymous.

                                      Conference encounter

                                      Two days later on April 27th, a software conference took place that has no relationship with the conference I am organizing. I went there to meet two acquaintances. After meeting with them I decided to tour around and see the different stands of the conference. At that precise moment I saw the former speaker. She was calling the security of the event and using her cellphone to record me. She yelling that I was at the conference to stalk her, and that I was harassing her and following her. I never thought something like this could ever happen. It is worth noting that, at this point, I had only talked over the phone with her once, met her in person also once and, as I stated before, I had received several persistent communications on her. Now she was accusing me of following her to her work, to a conference and of being a stalker. One of the organizers of this conference intervened and let her yell at me instead of trying to solve the issue. A few days after I learned he was a close friend of her and her partner.

                                      I had to leave the conference, depressed by the whole situation. Luckily, my girlfriend and other friends were there to help me. I was just attending a conference and was subjected, along with my acquaintances, to a very unpleasant moment by being unfairly accused by a person I didn’t know.

                                      They went public

                                      After this incident, a friend gave me a heads up that the boyfriend of this person had taken to Twitter to post that I was harassing and threatening his girlfriend. He even suggested that I was personally attacking him through his girlfriend. He later deleted this tweet but I managed to save screenshots.

                                      After this I felt powerless and despaired. I never imagined that telling someone she would not speak at the conference would expose me and my team to this sort of situation. Several people contacted us to ask what was going on and why I was being accused of harassing a woman. I had to give explanations to our sponsors. Being accused like that caused me harm. He had already gone public with his version, so I decided to tell my side of the story on Twitter too. I needed people to know the facts: we had contacted a speaker to tell her she was no longer a part of the conference, we were harassed and I was the victim of a false accusation that had a commercial impact for me. I had to talk with clients, sponsors and employees to explain what was happening. Due to all of this, I decided to file the corresponding lawsuits.

                                      While I was sleeping, early morning May 4th, my phone began to ring incessantly for minutes with notifications. It was an employee’s phone sending messages via Signal, for several minutes. I called him to ask what was going on. He said he hadn’t touched his phone. I asked him to turn off his phone, but the messages kept coming. At the same time, another employee called me to tell me he was getting those messages too and wanted to know what was happening. In the years I have been using Signal, this never happened to me nor do I know of similar cases, but I have talked with security specialists that pointed me to how this might have happened.

                                      This is just one of many similar issues I had to go through since then, but this article would become long and boring if I listed them all, and I think you already get the idea.

                                      What is the best way to act in these cases?

                                      Sometimes, our initial reaction to this type of situation is keeping quiet and hope it goes away. As soon as you start talking you start being judged and getting deep into even a bigger problem. These are the reasons why we hesitated within my team to make this situation public. We didn’t want to waste time, energy and resources on this affair. Generally, the best scenario is to talk with the involved parties, to cooperate and to seek a solution that doesn’t make the problem bigger. This isn’t always possible. In this case they went public and accused me and I had to explain what happened. I had to explain to sponsors, clients, employees and other members of the community what happened.

                                      What’s the legal status of the conflict?

                                      I’m currently analyzing with different attorneys and advisers the steps to take next. One of the pieces of advice they gave me were not to give any names to avoid escalating the situation even further. It pains me to do so, because I feel I need to warn the community so that this doesn’t happen to more people. But I understand this is the way things work and right now I need to trust that the justice system in my country will do its work. Therefore, I will take the necessary legal actions to bring light to this situation, and I will request the legal system to publish all necessary documents to prove I acted with integrity at all times.

                                      Why is it important to create safe and diverse cooperation spaces?

                                      Some people consider that software conferences are focusing too much on inclusion and diversity. What they want is for conferences to be exclusively technical. This makes sense only in abstract. The problem with this is that they aren’t taking into account that many people can’t partake in the way they could and would like to. There is no way of making a technical conference if some people feel insecure or uncomfortable. This is why inclusion and diversity are essential in these kinds of events, as well as the participation of the groups that promote these values.

                                      We know that hostile environments are often generated where harassment and uncomfortable situations make women and minorities step aside. It is important to generate a space where everybody, no matter what gender, ethnicity, religion or ideology, is able to share knowledge in a friendly, pleasant environment with a collaboration spirit. There are several ways to achieve this. One of them is to work along gender and minority technology groups, which are doing an excellent work in promoting bigger diversity, and cooperate with them. Giving discounts to those minorities that have less resources is another way. It is also necessary to be attentive towards potential conflict situations that may occur so we can solve them by following a code of conduct.

                                      This year, only 2 of the 9 speakers in our conference will be women. The conference is still really behind its gender equality goals in this sense. We are working with different women’s groups to improve. I am sure that we will do better in the following years.

                                      How will we move forward?

                                      Today, we are working to leave all this behind us, but since there are legal complaints, this will probably take more time, more money and more energy.

                                      Being involved in situations like this is part of the risk one takes when organizing a conference and facing a greater deal of public exposure. It was probably naive of me not to consider these kind of things could happen. I actually believed that the hard part of organizing a conference was the logistics, but I learned that sometimes the hardest part is the human factor.

                                      The best way to face this type of situation is to always be faithful to the code of conduct, not give in to undue pressure and consult groups dedicated to ethics, gender and minorities in technology because they know the most about these issues. Also, to lay things out in the open, speak up and not let there be a taboo is essential to prevent other people to go through the same ordeal.

                                      Finally, I would like to thank everybody that contacted us. In times like these, those gestures are worth a lot.

                                      1. 5

                                        At least reader mode of firefox removes them?

                                        1. 2

                                          that’s good

                                        2. 2

                                          The Make Medium Readable Again browser extension removes the overlays while preserving the styling of the page.

                                        3. 1

                                          I found this to be particularly concerning:

                                          While I was sleeping, early morning May 4th, my phone began to ring incessantly for minutes with notifications. It was an employee’s phone sending messages via Signal, for several minutes. I called him to ask what was going on. He said he hadn’t touched his phone. I asked him to turn off his phone, but the messages kept coming. At the same time, another employee called me to tell me he was getting those messages too and wanted to know what was happening. To be clear, I don’t think in any way somebody exploited a vulnerability of Signal, but it was used. In the years I have been using Signal, this never happened to me nor do I know of similar cases, but I have talked with security specialists that pointed me to how this might have happened.

                                          How can this be achieved with Signal? Does this imply the woman or boyfriend of the woman has insider knowledge of SIgnal to achieve this?

                                          It’d be good to get clarity on “It was an employee’s phone sending messages via Signal,” actually means, as in the OP was receiving messages that appeared to be coming from someone who wasn’t actually sending them?

                                          1. 1

                                            In the past he already found a Signal remote exec bug. Anyway I don’t think in any way that a Signal bug was exploited.

                                            I sent you a private message.

                                          2. 1

                                            @unbalancedparentheses Why would you not call out the names of the people doing this? Seems like some strange fear of further reprisals - healthy communities work much better when bad behaviour is called out as objectively and calmly as possible and I strongly think you should do that here.

                                            1. 10

                                              It says in the article it was because of the advice of his legal team.

                                              1. [Comment removed by author]

                                                1. 1

                                                  How so?

                                                  1. 1

                                                    The Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits:

                                                    Posting or threatening to post other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”)

                                                    It also states:

                                                    We expect all community participants (contributors, paid or otherwise; sponsors; and other guests) to abide by this Code of Conduct in all community venues–online and in-person–as well as in all one-on-one communications pertaining to community business.

                                                    This code of conduct and its related procedures also applies to unacceptable behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of community members.

                                                    This precludes anyone from arguing that he wouldn’t be violating his own CoC because it didn’t happen at the conference.

                                                    Unfortunately, it seems @unbalancedparentheses already violated his own CoC when he apparently posted the name of the alleged antagonist on his Twitter account, which he has since redacted. I haven’t seen this with my own eyes (I have only seen allegations of it), and it seems to have been scrubbed from both Google and Wayback Machine caches, so correct me if I’m wrong.

                                                    I don’t know either party involved, and while I have personal opinions surrounding the ethics of “witch hunts” in the tech community (which is my l interpretation of the subject article), I won’t argue either side because I don’t know the full story (and incidentally, neither do most people discussing this here and on HN).

                                                    What I will say however is that if you explicitly define a Code of Conduct then you ought to be obliged to adhere to it just as everyone else is expected to.

                                                    EDIT: I would appreciate anyone who is downvoting to explain exactly how I’ve been unfair here. All I have done is point out a blatant double standard.

                                                    1. 1

                                                      OK, I understand, so according to your original comment he would have been in violation if he had posted the names.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Yes.

                                                        Also, as far as I understand he did post the name(s), but then retracted.

                                                        He also expressed that he wants to post this information, but is not doing so on legal advice. He expresses that sentiment here:

                                                        One of the pieces of advice they gave me were not to give any names to avoid escalating the situation even further. It pains me to do so, because I feel I need to warn the community so that this doesn’t happen to more people.

                                                        Sadly it seems my argument is only attacking one side, but this is the only side of the argument I’ve seen. I don’t know who the alleged antagonist is.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          The code of conduct disallows doxing.

                                                          You seem to think that posting someone’s name counts as doxing.

                                                          Wouldn’t that mean that including the list of speakers on the conference page would be against the code of conduct?

                                                          1. 1

                                                            You seem to think that posting someone’s name counts as doxing.

                                                            Yes. That’s because that’s exactly what that means.

                                                            Here’s the definition for the word “dox”:

                                                            search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

                                                            Here’s the definition of Personally Identifiable Information, as defined in 2007 by the US government in a memorandum from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget:

                                                            Information which can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as their name, social security number, biometric records, etc. alone, or when combined with other personal or identifying information which is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, etc.

                                                            Wouldn’t that mean that including the list of speakers on the conference page would be against the code of conduct?

                                                            No, because there is obviously consent — whether implicit or explicit — to publish the speaker’s name on the promotional material for the conference. In fact I have at times in the past had to give explicit consent to include my name and photograph on conference promotional material.

                                                            Since you’ve given talks yourself in the past, and since this is completely obvious, and given the other comments you’ve made in this thread, it is obvious to me that you are arguing in such bad faith that it may as well be called trolling. What you are doing here is typically called “sealioning”.

                                                            Perhaps you believe that it’s only doxing when someone else does it? It is clear as day that some people see themselves as above even their own laws. 🙄

                                                            1. 3

                                                              Not at all. I have legitimately never heard the word “doxing” to refer to anything but the practice of publishing private information like someone’s phone number or address; this is the first time I’ve ever heard it used to refer to something public like someone’s name.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                If you were being genuine and you weren’t arguing in bad faith, then I apologise for having jumped on you like that.

                                              2. 3

                                                What’s the community in this case? ‘Anyone who uses the web’?

                                                Naming names on a public site is tantamount to setting up a stall selling torches and pitchforks.

                                              3. 1

                                                Is it me or is there really no mention of where the conference actually takes place on https://buzzconf.org/ ? “Reserve your spot” takes me to a page where it’s mentioned, but I think the city and country should really be above the fold on the landing page ;)

                                                1. 2

                                                  You are right, that is a huge mistake. It is in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 99% of the people that come or visit the page are from Argentina.

                                                2. [Comment from banned user removed]

                                                  1. 16

                                                    I can’t claim to know about this situation and I haven’t looked at the other side of it

                                                    Thank you for adding to the sum of all human knowledge despite these setbacks.

                                                    1. 9

                                                      You never at any point in this article consider this is how the speaker rejected by a mob you listened to had felt.

                                                      Was the speakers rejection and its cause publicly announced?

                                                      1. 7

                                                        We also talked with the organizers of other conferences and with dev that are part of gender groups focalized in technology and all of them recommended us to take distance from them.

                                                        So, you asked the church if someone they disagreed with was a heretic.

                                                        If you want to phrase it that way: no, they verified with the church that someone who they didn’t yet have sufficient knowledge about was indeed a known heretic according to various groups within the church, who could have easily disagreed with each other or who could have reported not having any knowledge of previous heretic behaviour.

                                                        Or, if you want to state it without using a loaded analogy and without assuming things: they asked various communities about someone’s history.

                                                        But as you phrased it it disqualifies your response as possibly interesting, because it demonstrates a clear presumption of negligence, wrong behaviour and guilt.

                                                      2. -10

                                                        We know that hostile environments are often generated where harassment and uncomfortable situations make women and minorities step aside. It is important to generate a space where everybody, no matter what gender, ethnicity, religion or ideology, is able to share knowledge in a friendly, pleasant environment with a collaboration spirit. There are several ways to achieve this. One of them is to work along gender and minority technology groups, which are doing an excellent work in promoting bigger diversity, and cooperate with them. Giving discounts to those minorities that have less resources is another way. It is also necessary to be attentive towards potential conflict situations that may occur so we can solve them by following a code of conduct.

                                                        I am not 100% sure that it’s actually illegal for a public event of the sort that a tech conference is to explicitly price-discriminate on the basis of ethnic background. If an organizer tried to do this for a conference I was interested in attending however, I would absolutely look into the possibility of bringing legal action against the organizers, and encourage people I knew to boycott the conference. The organizer, if they thought like the OP, would probably view this as an additional headache - but, frankly, to hell with them. I see no reason to be charitable to people who think it’s righteous to formally discriminate against white people.

                                                        1. 17

                                                          formally discriminate against white people.

                                                          How in the world do you draw that conclusion from the text you quoted?

                                                          1. -1

                                                            “Minorities” usually refers to people who aren’t white, since most people who talk about minority representation (in English) come from political entities that are currently majority-white.

                                                            1. 1

                                                              I missed that you specifically called out this passage:

                                                              Giving discounts to those minorities that have less resources is another way.

                                                              I thought you were implying that “white people”, in your phrasing, had a legal right to harass women and minorities, given the first sentence in the quote:

                                                              We know that hostile environments are often generated where harassment and uncomfortable situations make women and minorities step aside.

                                                          2. 9

                                                            Seeing as the conference is in Argentina, you may not have the correct assumptions about who counts as a minority there or what the laws might be. Anyway, no one’s being excluded based on ethnicity. If the conference organizers have a set of free or discounted passes they want to give to people who aren’t likely to show up otherwise, I don’t see why other attendees should have a problem with that unless they don’t want those people there.

                                                            1. -10

                                                              Should Ashkenazi Jews object to a conference pricing structure that checks whether or not you’re Jewish so they can give a discount to gentiles only, on the grounds that there’s too many Jews in the conference and Jews have money anyway?

                                                              1. 10

                                                                If you spent more time arguing in the positive than in the negative, I think people would take your line of reasoning more seriously. I think you’ve identified a gap in current race and gender focused advocacy, that could be solved by advocating for some additional scholarships for conferences based on financial need, done via FIFO and double blind review of criteria. I think that’s valuable as someone who was very very poor when they first started showing interest in technical careers, and god knows there’s enough money floating around that it would be trivial.

                                                                Of course, my hunch is that the scholarship recipients in the US at least will skew towards minorities, because that’s who the statistically significant chunk of poor people in the US are by percentage. That’s not discrimination.

                                                                1. 5

                                                                  It’s interesting that you mention ‘Ashkenazi Jews’ specifically, when your argument only requires ‘Jews’. That shows that you clearly understand the existence of minorities with their specific (dis)advantages. Now combine that with the knowledge that discrimination based on age (discounts for children and the elderly), gender (ladies free on ladies night), nationality and ethnicity (in many countries locals, or those of specific ethnicities, pay less for access to certain touristic locations) are common and considered normal. Do you then not see how giving discounts to specific minority groups (as opposed to your example, which is giving discounts to the majority) can be both ethically and legally sound?

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    This requires a group to remain a minority. Are there actually fewer women than men? In any case, I agree that venues should be allowed to set prices for any reason they like. Tan Shirt day. Ladies night. Whatever floats your boat (so long as you are not a government, that’s where it becomes evil).

                                                                  2. 4

                                                                    This analogy is offensive.

                                                                    This phrasing especially is very unfortunate: “Jews have money anyway”. I’m being charitable here and assuming your are waxing satirical, but I urge you to reconsider your choice of words in the future.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      Antisemitic memes phrased in the hypothetical form are still antisemitic. I hope the mods will remove this post.

                                                                2. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Removing off-topic rant and resulting meta thread.]

                                                                  1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Removing off-topic rant and resulting meta thread.]

                                                                    1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Removing off-topic rant and resulting meta thread.]

                                                                      1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Removing off-topic rant and resulting meta thread.]

                                                                        1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Removing off-topic rant and resulting meta thread.]