Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le vendredi 21 février 2020, 22:55:04 CET Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 21 févr. 2020 12:39:37 +0100, a 
ecrit:
> > It is defeatist because it departs from the basic idea you’ll *have*
> > to
> > exclude someone at some point.  No solution will ever be found.
> 
> Yes.  Been there a few times, had to resort to it, I remember a case
> where it was after a couple of *years* trying with others to find a
> solution.

I recall some of them (likely one of those you’re thinking about is the 
same as I), as the technical and political solutions I proposed keep 
staying the same…

> > And rather than taking the risk of not reacting immediately
> > (“tolerance zero”, another right wing thing)
> 
> I never said reaction had to be immediate.

Sorry then, my bad.

> > you prefer to “aknowledge” this “will have to be done at some
> > point”.  Is if there wasn’t any middle ground for compromision
> > there.
> 
> Sometimes you can't find any.

No, you can’t know.  We’re talking about social stuff, hence, complex and 
pretty unpredictable, and not possibly all-understandable.  You can’t 
demonstrate things about people the same you can make a mathematical proof 
so you know there aren’t any unthought possibility left.

So the only thing you can say is “we (a fixed set of people) couldn’t find 
any *in that limited amount of time*”, and then, if it’s so hard, that’d 
more to me an incentive to harder measures… but total exclusion is the 
ultimate one.  I’m sure with good will or at least inventivity, we can find 
all sorts of middle grounds to this one…

For instance, a plain moderation-less list, and a moderated one, that 
would replicate the first, with moderation added.

> > The idea of shared kill/blacklist or /ignore have been already
> > proposed. That solves it.
> 
> Not necessarily for less strong people. Just leaving out is simpler than
> having to yet again set up some filters and everything.

If it could be automatic, nope, it would *even politically* be more 
simple, if it was decentralized (yet automatic).  Think of a WoT of 
blacklists, for instance.

> > It is paternalist because it assumes *the chiefs* have to take care
> > for
> > “uncomfort” and “stuff people couldn’t stand”.
> 
> In my book, parts of chiefs' role is making sure people are comfortable,
> yes.

I don’t like giving so much power to anyone…

> > It always will be, because “excluding” these “toxic” people won’t make
> > them disappear away, they always will be somewhere.
> 
> Possibly, unfortunately. That said, sometimes some people are only toxic
> in a given situation, and just excluding them from it avoids the issue.

Though I always despice the word and concept of “toxic” as much, this is 
an interesting point.  I’d be content to see example, but even the very 
idea is interesting and new to me.

> Sure. But not everybody can (I'm not sure anybody can really in all
> situations).

Yeah some can and are really hardskinned, but a few and not always equally 
distributed in all social milieus.