[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Testing Discourse for Debian



On Sunday, April 12, 2020 11:51:27 AM PDT Russ Allbery wrote:

> Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> writes:

> > And separately, I got interested in Debian because it was using mailing

> > lists in the first place. Mail is decentralized by design and this is

> > why it is so important for freedom of speech.

>

> I don't understand this comment. Mailing lists are inherently centralized

> by design.

>

> > Now you suggest a centralized platform for communication, because it is

> > easier to moderate (oppress freedom of speech). To me it sounds like:

> > "Yes you can talk, but only if you do it on my terms, on my territory".

> > Moderation is a slippery slope, using centralized communication platform

> > is one step closer to dictatorship.

>

> The forum to which you sent this message is already moderated and has been

> for months. I suspect you didn't even notice.

 

So how then you need more moderation possibilities with Discourse?

 

> That said, I will argue that "yes, you can talk, but only if you do it on

> my terms, on my territory" is a message that the Debian project should

> send about its own communication channels. (Obviously people can go

> create their own and that's no business of ours.) That's how we create a

> community that can get things done together, rather than a 4chan

> free-for-all full of abuse and trolling.

 

> We should think carefully about both the terms and the territory and be

> both gentle and understanding, but we will not successfully create a free

> Linux distribution (the actual point, after all) within the noise of

> complete freedom from consequences in communication.

>

> I don't believe Debian is or should be a welcoming home for people who

> care more about the ability to say anything they want whenever they want

> in project forums than about making a free software distribution together.

> And yes, these two goals do sometimes come into conflict (although we can

> try to minimize how often that happens).

 

I do not advocate for free-for-all. It is just the ability to decide on who gets to say what should not be in the hands of a single person / small group, it is way to easy to get corrupted/biased/controlled.

 

Coming from a corrupted-to-the-bone post USSR country I speak from personal experience of being on receiving end of that situation. You may think that it is for the best, but it is not.

 

 

--

Ihor Antonov

https://useplaintext.email


Reply to: