Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 25 2021, @07:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the CoCs dept.

https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671

The entire moderation team resigns, effective immediately. This resignation is done in protest of the Core Team placing themselves unaccountable to anyone but themselves.

As a result of such structural unaccountability, we have been unable to enforce the Rust Code of Conduct to the standards the community expects of us and to the standards we hold ourselves to. To leave under these circumstances deeply pains us, and we apologize to all of those that we have let down. In recognition that we are out of options from the perspective of Rust Governance, we feel as though we have no course remaining to us but to step down and make this statement.

In so doing, we would offer a few suggestions to the community writ large:

  • We suggest that Rust Team Members come to a consensus on a process for oversight over the Core Team. Currently, they are answerable only to themselves, which is a property unique to them in contrast to all other Rust teams.

  • In the interest of not perpetuating unaccountability, we recommend that the replacement for the Mod Team be made by Rust Team Members not on the Core Team.
  • We suggest that the future Mod Team, with advice from Rust Team Members, proactively decide how best to handle and discover unhealthy conflict among Rust Team Members. We suggest that the Mod Team work with the Foundation in obtaining resources for professional mediation.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ilsa on Monday November 29 2021, @02:35PM (1 child)

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 29 2021, @02:35PM (#1200523)

    ....seriously?

    I keep forgetting that you're as bad as Runaway. You've intentionally misconstrued what I said, and your prison demographic facts are flat out wrong. I bet you think the US healthcare system is all fine and dandy too.

    Sorry, I'm not playing Brandolini's law with you.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 29 2021, @03:11PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 29 2021, @03:11PM (#1200532) Journal

    You've intentionally misconstrued what I said

    How? I don't see that myself. Let's review once again. First, you talked about the prison population. As I noted, that's irrelevant to hate speech. I might add here, that hate speech law would actually make the problem worse by adding people to those jails. There is no misconstrual there. Then you talked about blacks being "randomly attacked and/or murdered". I merely noted that most of those attacks are gang-related, often by blacks. Further, there is no acknowledgement of degree or that assault and murder is not speech.

    I suppose I can look up number of hate-related assaults and murders (though not the "randomness" of the crime) - keeping in mind that nobody was counting those decades ago. But what would be the point when you haven't specified any numbers in your post? I acknowledge there are attacks and murders based on ethnicity. Likely some of those are genuinely random too. But mere existence of such crimes is not a measure of whether things are better or not. Finally, you wrote:

    It's not possible to eliminate racism cause people will always be assholes.

    When some negative thing is not possible to eliminate, then by necessity, one has to decide how much of it to tolerate. My take is that the only reasonable place to draw the line legally is the doing of harm. Hate speech just doesn't do harm (no, I don't buy the arguments of ethnic slander and such) and hence, should be legal.

    Further, I don't think you get how easy it is to abuse hate speech law. There's where the "legal pretext to punish out-groups" comes in. For example, hate speech often resorts to euphemisms, dog whistles, and similar, relatively subtle tricks of communication to conceal itself. I've seen "New York bankers" used as code for Jewish bankers, or references to certain cities (like Detroit and Saint Louis) to stereotype cities with large black populations. Or the recent flashing of the "OK" sign which is alleged sometimes to be a hate speech thing.

    How would the law tell the difference between legal speech that just happens to mention the wrong code words and coy hate speech? Or a deliberate joke that parodies hate speech? My take is that it would depend on whether the authorities want to punish the party in question. Remember the process of the trial can be the punishment - there doesn't have to be a reasonable case.

    That brings us to my key point. There's no value to hate speech law and a lot of downside to it. We even have cases [soylentnews.org] where it made the problems it was supposed to solve worse! It should be outright eliminated everywhere.