many opinions on censorship/moderation etc

[Zenaan Harkness]

Please note, some of my opinions are strongly held.

Please also note, I encourage and support everyone to express their
opinions, even those contrary to my own of course.

I hope no-one gets scared off by my written vehemence. I think there
is an important discussion to be had and my intention is to express my
own position and to begin a discussion, not to argue against others'
opinions.

Some quoting with permission (in general I will leave it to others to
copy or post their own opinions or etc, it is too much work for me
right now):

On 3/12/14, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> On 3/12/14, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mi, 12 mar 14, 01:25:47, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> -- OFFLIST --
>
>> If you prefer. Feel free to quote me on anything I write below though.

>>> My intention is to start a discussion around censorship of our
>>> debian-user (and other) mailing lists, and also around exercising our
>>> authority - we are the subscribers, and it's up to us to say and
>>> demand and have whether we want, or do not want, censorship, and/ or
>>> clandestine censorship, and/ or individual-post or whole-user
>>> censorship etc.
>>
>> I disagree with you here. -user as well as all other mailing lists on
>> lists.debian.org and lists.alioth.debian.org "belong" to the Debian
>> Project. They are run using Debian resources (hardware, listmasters,
>> etc.) and exist for the benefit of the Debian Project.
>>
>> Even if lists like -user are primarily subscribed by non-Debian members,
>> this doesn't mean they (we) "own" the list and I believe the Debian
>> Project is entirely within its rights to restrict access to this
>> resource (temporary or permanently) to certain individuals in case it
>> believes those individuals may bring harm to the goals of Debian and the
>> community built around it.
>>
>> If you don't agree with the above I'd be very interested in you opinion
>> about what the Debian Project should do about occurrences such as:
>>
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00350.html
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00462.html
>
> Mr Natural Linux, Arnold Bird, etc. Interesting - thank you for those
> links. At the very least those would need to be included to explain
> why censorship is proposed and/ or is in place.
>
>> And if you don't believe these can be actively harmful see for example
>>
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00466.html
>
> This is the reaction to the above of course. Again, thank you for those
> links.

Warning, the following analogy by me has created at least one reaction
which I consider was not optimal for the discussion:

> What we are seeing is a microcosm, in Debian, of the greater societal
> 'problems' and I am referring to things like:
> *) the type of torture at Abu Graib of "terrorists" (because some
> military or FBI or NSA guy said they're terrorists) - this is like the
> highly objectionable call to torture in the first two links you gave,
> and
> *) the 'anti-terror' laws in response (like the msg00466.html link
> above) - where the NSA (listmasters) does clandestine spying on all
> citizens (list subscribers), with again, behind-closed doors
> censorship (you are now in jail, we say you have no right to speak
> about it, you have no right to a lawyer, if you're family talks about
> you in jail we will put them in jail too) - the highly objectionable
> call to amass power into the hands of a "common sense" few

Here I wish to show without naming anyone, that I got a strong
opposition to my use of the NSA analogy, and again, I support the
right of everyone to express their opinion - note I have NOT received
consent to name the author or this quote:
> What *I* see is a terrorist who doesn't like the way his compatriots are
> being treated.  Trying to equate the Debian lists to the NSA and FBI is
> only trying to incite a riot.
>
> The bottom line is - the list is owned by Debian, and Debian has the
> right to accept or reject anything they wish.  If you don't like it,
> find another list or create your own.
>
> You have just lost one potential supporter here.

So please note that my words can sometimes be taken offensively, and I
view this as quite possibly sub-optimal communication on my part.
Anyway, let's NOT debate the pros and cons of analogies, but rather
the issues at hand.

> The problem with the absolute executive power is that, although the
> current generation may have good intentions, and may not abuse their
> power (I am not saying this is the case or not), once that power is
> established in statute law (official code of conduct with executive
> power to listmasters), then there is the possibility that on the next
> round (next govt, next issue of the day), someone like Mr Arnold Bird/
> Maas Verri becomes the one who is a listmaster and abuses that power
> to censor discussions which ought _never_ be censored, at least by the
> "common sense" of the majority of the list.
>
> So first things first, we need to recognize what the real problems
> are, before we can truly decide what to do.
>
> I say that a real and genuine problem is a Maas Verri becoming a
> listmaster, BEFORE they have ever "said the wrong thing" or "done the
> wrong thing".
>
> I believe Maas is actually one of the many alter egos we have seen
> trolling, and I also believe he is the vehement, vocal and sometimes
> irrational member of the Debian Technical Committee, Ian Jackson.
>
> Even if they are not the same person (highly doubtful in my mind), it
> is useful for us to assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that
> they are the same person - what this highlights is the problem I am
> witnessing - namely, someone gets into a position of power (Tech Ctte
> or Listmaster) on very good "appearances" even over many years.
>
> Then one day, when things don't go "right and good" according to their
> own way of thinking, a darker side pops out, like a puppet, unexpected
> and WAY out of line (as we see above).
>
> So the deep problem is not "Listmasters need more power", but in fact
> "how do we give power, then take power away, or delegate the power of
> the community (users or developers) as a whole, and fix abuses of
> power after they happen?"
>
> We are in Debian's microcosmic equivalent to the world's reaction to
> "terrorists".
>
> At the moment, the government, those with franchise (the right to
> vote) in the Debian "community" (ie developers) are planning an
> executive decision which will effect users of this list, debian-user at .
>
> Currently the "Debian project/ developers" say that I, a user of
> Debian and a subscriber to debian-user list, ought to have no
> authority over how my debian-user list is censored, and that they (the
> government/DDs) get to decide "for me" and will do so "behind closed
> doors" (on debian-private)!
>
> This power is in principle objectionable to me.
>
> I am a subscriber to debian-user and I have the right to object to
> things which are objectionable to me, such as clandestine censorship
> and such as legislated clandestine censorship!
>
> I as a subscriber, also have a duty of care to the "Debian Project".
>
> I don't do development work for Debian, but I do do 'work' of
> contributing to debian-user list (and benefiting from it), so why am I
> disenfranchised on decisions which will effect me and my use of the
> resource known as debian-user?
>
> <sarcasm, don't take offence please :) >
> Oh, that's right, I'm just a dumn USER, not much better than a LOSER
> or a CONSUMER, and I need to be treated as such, with no right to have
> any say over the forum (debian-user) in which I am an active
> contributer, I have no right to say the list should not be censored.
> </sarcasm>
>
> Please don't take me the wrong way, I'm just trying to use comedy here
> to highlight the issue.
>
> Granting of power.
> Franchise.
> Removal of power.
> Censorship.
> Handling 'crimes' such as 'hate speech'.
> Handling crimes such as 'abuse of power'.
>
> These are our fundamental problems.
>
> If 'Maas Verri' was a Debian Listmaster and conducting the type of
> censorship that he clearly would condone - since he condones physical
> violence, then he would surely condone the much lesser "effective
> measure" (echo of DMCA) of censorship being justified as a "reasonable
> means" to the "good ends intended for Debian Project".
>
> The road to hell is paved by good intentions.
>
> It is so, so easy to set up power structures and regimes of censorship
> and "punishment" which regimes will, inevitably, AT SOME LATER TIME,
> be abused against the very thing those regimes and powers were meant
> to protect against!
>
> NSA
>
> Abu Graib
>
> Anti-Terror laws:
>  - removal of right to silence
>  - removal of right to speak
>  - removal of right to due process at law
>  - "right" to be in solitary confinement for many years
>  - right of a few to "declare individuals as terrorists"
>  - right of a few to "declare organisations as terrorists"
>  - right of NSA to clandestine monitor all communications
>  - right of NSA to disrupt, by their arbitrary will, any
> communications (see the NSA leak from Edward Snowden regarding tor and
> tor relays - http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-tor-stinks.pdf
> you can see I'm not making this stuff up, it is happening).
>
> We really, really, really don't want to have to say to new debian-user
> subscribers in some future point in time "there is clandestine
> monitoring of debian-user and posts to it, and the NSA^^^Listmasters
> may clandestinely censor you and or any of your posts to the list,
> it's out of control at the moment with at least one power-hungry
> listmaster who thinks what he's doing is for the good of the project -
> no I'm not making this stuff up, it is happening".
>
> (BTW, if you think it is useful, please post my discussion (I speak
> for myself) to debian-private or debian-project - but please do CC me
> if you do).
>
> I really was hoping that this part of the discussion would be CCed to
> debian-project etc.
>
>
>>> It should be obvious that I am very strongly opposed to such
>>> censorship and to the collecting of power into the hands of a few
>>> "behind closed doors".
>>
>> As far as I understand by this you mean the Listmasters. I'm not sure
>> how familiar you are with Debian so I strongly recommend you read the
>> constitution:
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
>>
>> The Listmasters are responsible for running the lists. If you disagree
>> with some of their decisions you are free to complain, either to the
>
> It is all very well to be allowed to complain ("you may bring an
> action in the Supreme Court against the government, this is your right
> and we encourage you to do so"), but up until earlier this morning, I
> did not even have any knowledge that censorship was going on!!!!!
>
> That's not censorship, that's covert clandestine censorship.
>
> That was completely outside of my knowledge.
>
> And I'm just a user, a subscriber to debian-user, so I have no vote
> regarding whether debian-user is censored or not!
>
> This is not right!
>
> These things are neither democratic, nor reasonable nor acceptable to me!
>
> The debian-developers have franchise! They are allowed to vote about
> what power is exercised over debian-user list, and I have no right to
> vote on that, but I am a regular poster to, and subscriber to, this
> list!
>
> Can you see the disempowerment of me, Zenaan Harkness, in this actual
> and real case?
>
> True example: There are people who have called for Ralph Mardorph's
> posts to debian-user to be censored (perhaps someone can find the
> links).
>
> I VEHEMENTLY object to Ralph's posts to debian-user being censored!!!
> (at least all the ones I've read so far)
>
> I am a subscriber to this list, and I have put my foot-in-mouth
> disease sometimes too!!
>
> I would hope that others on the list would stick up for me, like I
> stick up for Ralph!
>
> It is OUR list! We are the subscribers! We have a duty of care to the
> Debian Project! We have a duty of care to each other! We have a duty
> of care to protect the openness of our list!
>
> I have a right to have a say in MY debian-user list!
>
> The subscribers to the list, are the ones who should be held by the
> Debian Project as responsible for decisions about censorship on the
> list! Although developers are encouraged to subscribe to debian-user,
> some of them don't even do so, and yet they are making the decisions
> for us!
>
> This is a government that is exercising power, without true
> representation of the constituents!
>
> As a foundation principle, that is NOT OK by me!
>
>
>> Project Leader <leader at debian.org> (even though they are not Delegates
>> as I thought -- good thing I checked before spreading misinformation) or
>> the Project at large (debian-private at lists.debian.org for sensitive
>> issues, debian-project at lists.debian.org for issues that can/should be
>> public).
>
> And if the DPL is a bit too busy, and/or considers that the particular
> post by Ralph (hypothetical :) ) is "borderline" and decides she just
> doesn't have time to write a report and intervene to fix the "non
> problem"?
>
> The wheels of "justice"?
>
> NO. Thank. You.
>
>> However, I strongly recommend you read the discussions on -project and
>> -vote about the new Code of Conduct. In there you'll also find
>> discussions about mailing lists bans and how these are or should be
>> handled. As far as I understand the rough consensus so far is:
>>
>> - person banned is informed (reason and duration)
>
> That must be foundational. I would be amazed if current debian
> government decided something other than this.
>
> Perhaps there ought be a declaration of rights?:
>  - list subscribers have no right to vote regarding list censorship
>  - DDs have right to vote regarding list censorship
>  - censored subscriber has right to speak publicly
>  - censored subscriber has right to appeal to DPL
>
> I think we are too far down a slippery slope, but at the least, the
> debian government NEEDS to be honest about the rights they are denying
> to
> such as the first "right" I list just above, the dispositive negative
> assertion regarding subscriber (non) rights regarding list censorship
>
>
>> - information to -private only, for oversight and to protect the
>>   identity of the person banned (i.e. no public shaming)
>
> I think that the more foundational issues I am trying desperately to
> raise, ought be on the table of the debian govnerment (DDs/DPL), such
> as the franchise (voting rights) of debian users, regarding their
> email lists such as debian-user.
>
> Because it is clear that DDs, Tech Ctte and Listmasters have the power
> and the franchise, the future abusers of power (such as the abhorrent
> Maas Verri) will become Listmaster first!
>
>
>>> Right now I'm just wondering if you have some feedback on the email
>>> itself, not on the issue of censorship (that will be the public
>>> discussion).
>>
>> It will probably start a huge flame-war on -user with no real benefit,
>> please don't do it.
>
> I think you are right about that.
>
> I think a few thoughtful individuals is much more useful - I know good
> from evil and I know I am with a good conscience. To deny me my
> franchise, as a subscriber to debian-user, is a loss for the project!
>
> I speak similarly for you and others. I speak in the first person to
> highlight the issues.
>
>
> -----
> Now, Andrei, I still have not answered your question, I know...

In case reader is lost here, Andrei asked me what to actually do about
'very offensive' posts/communication. I don't yet have any sort of
clear answer. 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance' - we must
not give up our freedoms easily.

> It is not an easy one.
>
> From a very real perspective I say that this particular troll (and I
> firmly believe the recent set are all the same person) is very very
> useful for us, to highlight more important issues:
>  - censorship
>  - franchise
>  - duty of care
>  - granting of power
>  - controlling abuse of power
>  - punishing abuse of power
>
>
> So Maas Verri abused his power to speak publicly. Should he be
> punished? Should he be censored?
>
> Is it more important to first ask ourselves, who should decide the
> answers? And how should they decide?

---------
Now another brief, and UNNAMED quote highlights the lack of awareness
of the censorship/moderation that is in fact going on:

> Sorry, I haven't seen any indication of censorship on the mailing list.
>   To do so would require a moderated list, with volunteers monitoring it
> 24/7.  I see no indication of the large number of volunteers doing so.

There may be a miscommunication between us, between the debian list
administrators and us subscribers, and/ or elsewhere.

That's all for now. Others can post their views/copy their words as
they see fit.
Regards
Zenaan