[liberationtech] What is the point of posting nasty and abusive commentary?

[aryt alasti]

I'm a believer in responding to gratuitous incivility (and not in kind), as
it otherwise tends to persist indefinitely, and it does detract from
civilized discourse. I think that most participants in a forum such as this
come to it with a significant amount of foreknowledge about the prevalence
of biases and uninhibited internet ranting, and would agree with the
validity of the proviso that such not be addressed at anyone who posts here.

Aryt

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 3:14 PM Rand Strauss <Rand at peoplecount.org> wrote:

> The contribution of worthless judgements and name calling is that the rest
> of us get to
>
>    - exercise handling our reactions silently
>    - realize that "we" are a mixed bunch when it comes to rules and
>    civility, and/or handling our emotions,
>    - see some of our own biases, in this case, against Google and Medium,
>    - realize that though we want speech to not be censored, we believe in
>    censorship
>
> The censorship we believe in is stated in the rules (
> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt ):
>
> > 3. To maintain civil discourse, we have a zero-tolerance policy for
> anyone who posts ad hominems, or otherwise inflammatory, extraneous, or
> off-topic messages. Doing so will get you permanently moderated.
>
> Perhaps boOod was really giving us a cry to be "permanently moderated"…
> -r
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2020, at 11:33 PM, aryt alasti <aryt.alasti at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is the point of posting nasty and abusive commentary? That's not
> contributing to anyone's understanding of issues, technology, policy or
> perpetrators.
>
>
> Aryt
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020, 11:56 AM bo0od <bo0od at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> doesnt matter what all been said here, just because you worked at google
>> = you deserve every bit of what happened, wish for you all the worst
>> things in you life.
>>
>> also Medium is a shitty media.
>>
>> congrats you suck.
>>
>> Yosem Companys:
>> > My solution was to advocate for the adoption of a company-wide, formal
>> > Human Rights Program that would publicly commit Google to adhere to
>> human
>> > rights principles found in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, provide a
>> > mechanism for product and engineering teams to seek internal review of
>> > product design elements, and formalize the use of Human Rights Impact
>> > Assessments for all major product launches and market entries.
>> >
>> > But each time I recommended a Human Rights Program, senior executives
>> came
>> > up with an excuse to say no. At first, they said human rights issues
>> were
>> > better handled within the product teams, rather than starting a separate
>> > program. But the product teams weren’t trained to address human rights
>> as
>> > part of their work. When I went back to senior executives to again argue
>> > for a program, they then claimed to be worried about increasing the
>> > company’s legal liability. We provided the opinion of outside experts
>> who
>> > re-confirmed that these fears were unfounded. At this point, a colleague
>> > was suddenly re-assigned to lead the policy team discussions for
>> Dragonfly.
>> > As someone who had consistently advocated for a human rights-based
>> > approach, I was being sidelined from the on-going conversations on
>> whether
>> > to launch Dragonfly. I then realized that the company had never
>> intended to
>> > incorporate human rights principles into its business and product
>> > decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to
>> human
>> > rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher
>> stock
>> > price.
>> >
>> > It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues bullied
>> and
>> > screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their desks. At an
>> > all-hands meeting, my boss said, “Now you Asians come to the microphone
>> > too. I know you don’t like to ask questions.” At a different all-hands
>> > meeting, the entire policy team was separated into various rooms and
>> told
>> > to participate in a “diversity exercise” that placed me in a group
>> labeled
>> > “homos” while participants shouted out stereotypes such as “effeminate”
>> and
>> > “promiscuous.” Colleagues of color were forced to join groups called
>> > “Asians” and “Brown people” in other rooms nearby.
>> >
>> > In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR and senior
>> executives
>> > and was assured the problems would be handled. Yet in each case, there
>> was
>> > no follow up to address the concerns — until the day I was accidentally
>> > copied on an email from a senior HR director. In the email, the HR
>> director
>> > told a colleague that I seemed to raise concerns like these a lot, and
>> > instructed her to “do some digging” on me instead.
>> >
>> >
>> https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relations-here-s-why-i-left-49313d23065
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major
>> commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you
>> moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe,
>> change to digest mode, or change password by emailing
>> lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.
>
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major
> commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you
> moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe,
> change to digest mode, or change password by emailing
> lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/lt/attachments/20200105/e5f6880e/attachment.html>