Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 19:07, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> That woulds be amusing, if we do manage to get an essential
> package deemed inappropriate (the kernel has quite inappropriate and
> offensive language in it)
Good point. I suppose we should have an exception for packages at some
level of importance (standard + tasks? just standard?).
Note that the kernel source isn't essential.
> >>"Jeff" == Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes:
>
> Jeff> True. Unfortunately, when you're talking about something as subjective
> Jeff> as offense, there aren't many good classification systems that won't
> Jeff> themselves be offensive to someone. Democratic vote strikes me as one
> Jeff> of the few that's hard to challenge.
>
> Rubbish. The tyrrany of the majority is quite easy to
> challenge, especially when it comes to determining mores and imposing
> cultural biases on the minority. Try telling the Jewish folks that
> majority rules is good, when it comes to cultural., religious, or
> social mores, (which is what most offensive stuff offends against),
> given the majority approved pogroms that swept through europe
> periodically in the past.
That's why it would be good to have some form of conflict resolution
process for minority positions that find themselves to be unjustly
censored.
Someone suggested I just take bugs via the BTS and apply "good judgment"
to them. I didn't think that would be acceptable to most people. If we
have questions about a tyranny of the majority, then we certainly aren't
going to like a dictator.
> Oh, another example of popular idiocy: a couple of states
> dictated in a purely democratic fashion that the value of pi was no
> longer an infinite irrational number, but a nice finite rational
> number, by official decree.
It's ironic you bring this up. More later.
> Jeff> Also note my proposal to give the DPL "special rights", which could
> Jeff> allow for certain abuses to be curtailed.
>
> Oh, yes, the DPL has special right to decide on moral
> turpitude of packages.
So, I take it, you oppose giving the DPL special privileges? (I mean,
beyond your general opposition to the proposal.)
> Jeff> This is an experiment that relies on some assumptions:
>
> Jeff> - Most developers, joking aside, are capable of distinguishing
> Jeff> between technical preference and moral repugnance.
>
> Umm. I don't think it has a place in Debian. And moral
> repugnance has cultural factors. I also feel that it is a personal
> judgement call, not something to be decided by the majority.
There are many corner cases where this is true; there are others which
are more clear-cut. I'm intending my package to cover the latter cases.
> And it
> requires active participation of people who do not believe in the
> process, if only not to be marginalized by an voal group that goes
> about passing moral judgements unchallenged (in other words, I may
> have to vote for packages defensively even if I believe such voting
> is repugnant and morally bankrupt).
That is a good point. Assuming I go ahead with this package, can you
suggest a process you would be comfortable participating in, that would
register your general feeling of opposition to this kind of thing while
not allowing you to become marginalized?
As an example, if you were to find one of your packages "blacklisted" in
this sense, you might file a bug against the package BTS instead of
lobbying for votes, explaining your position. This might cause some
review process to be instigated, which might result in your package
getting an exemption.
I don't know what such a process would look like, but I'm willing to
hear suggestions.
> Jeff> - Most developers would like to avoid flamewars like this in
> Jeff> the future, and "punting" to a package like this is a good way
> Jeff> to stop them.
>
> I see. Well, I prefer not to let others make my moral
> judgements for me, and no, I prefer not to punt to a package, nor do
> I feel particularily inclined to let such judgements made by my
> betters for me.
>
> Punt indeed.
As if such decisions aren't already being made for you.
Do you prefer the current situations, where maintainers feel pressure to
censor their packages or feel the wrath of bug report after bug report
of angry users, to an open process whose decisions are open to appeal
and discussion?
See the note about BitchX. Some of those tag lines have already been
removed. Does that bother you? Do you feel that you've had a moral
judgment made for you? Do you trust the BitchX maintainer to decide for
you what taglines in the package are right for you to use - or the users
of BitchX to not harass him into submission?
(Note: no slam to the BitchX maintainer or users intended. It's just an
example.)
> Jeff> - Most developers would prefer adding information to the
> Jeff> system ("these packages might be offensive to some people") to
> Jeff> removing information ("this code/output/data is offensive to
> Jeff> some people, so I'll remove it in the diff").
>
> As I have said before, since one is not the other person, one
> can't say. And I find peer pressure to supress ideas that may be
> offensive offensive by itself.
Then, as I asserted above, I would assume that you'd be in favor of a
process that attempts to lessen or eliminate such pressure.
> Jeff> - Most developers will realize that trivializing the package by voting
> Jeff> on technical grounds ("emacs offends me") will render the package
> Jeff> unusable for the purposes above.
>
> Heh heh. I really find perl/python/kernel images(DEADBEEF?!!)/emacs/vi
> quite unacceptable.
Heh heh yourself. If you're the kind of person who can't see a
distinction between moral and technical spheres of discussion, then you
need to get out more.
Remember the point about legislating the value of pi? As you yourself
note, it's dangerous when people confuse moral, legal, and technical
questions. It's just as much of a mistake to resolve a technical
question via moral means as it is to resolve technical questions via
legal/moral means.
> Jeff> If it turns out I'm not right, I'll orphan the package and call the
> Jeff> experiment a failure.
>
> People ought to be making subjective, individual decisions by
> themselves. Enforcing some kind of moral majority standard is
> something I find highly offensive
Generally, I agree with you.
Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. No corporation or
government has the time to go through the entire corpus of interaction
provided by a modern computer system and vet it for appropriateness
according to the moral and legal restrictions they must operate under.
Instead, they foist that job off onto the organizations that provide
those modern computer systems, and expect that they will behave in a
professional behavior.
That results in censorship. You may not like it, but you can't tell me
that this isn't the way it happens. I've seen it, and even been victim
to it myself. You can go throw sand in the wind if you like, or don the
cloak of blind moral superiority ("see no evil, hear no evil, speak no
evil"), or you can try to change it.
One central assumption behind this package is that censorship happens,
and that we'd like to prevent it if we can by addressing some of the
concerns of our users when they call for it. Another is that open
processes beat closed ones every time. As with my other assumptions, I
could be wrong; we may care more for being passive, washing our hands of
the situation, and letting others make decisions in secret for us. If
so, then the package will not live long.
But, in that case, I wouldn't hold up Debian's virtues in regards to
freedom of expression - especially if its members attempt to hack the
package's own infrastructure to destroy it because they dislike its
message, as some here have proposed.
Reply to: