Censorship pressure on Raptor, messages missing

[pocock]

I received the following by private message.  I agree with the decision to have a separate area in the forum for open source politics.

I mildly agree with the decision to move the topic about the Debian lawsuit from the operating systems section to the water cooler section.

Each time I start a topic, I notice that Tim Kelly posts messages attacking my credibility as a developer and most of his messages make no reference to the topic itself.

Nonetheless, if people are lobbying Raptor to censor things, I feel their messages should all be published.

In the process of moving the topic, I notice the last message that I posted in the topic was lost and I kindly request that it be reinstated.

[SiteAdmin]

We're not trying to censor anyone.  Since we don't have a way of restoring the message, we feel the best course of action was to delete the other reply as well, leaving the original post alone in the locked thread.

In general, we've tried to provide a wide latitude for various opinions without detracting from the primary purpose of these forums, specifically, the discussion of self-sovereign computing on OpenPOWER systems.  We would prefer that all forum participants be respectful of the legally pretected attributes (gender, religion, etc.) of others, and for discussion on those particular topics to take place elsewhere.  This is primarily to avoid "hot button" topics that are not related in any significant way to the primary purpose of these forums, and is not attempted censorship, rather it is to keep discussion at least tangentially related to the core purpose of the forums.

We hope everyone understands, and if there are concerns please do let us know below.  Thank you!

[pocock]

We're not trying to censor anyone.

The point I was making is that other people sending demands to Raptor are trying to achieve censorship.  Once again, I would kindly ask you to consider posting copies of the demands you received from third parties.  Combined with the same efforts in other forums, I feel these demands amount to a pestering campaign.

In general, we've tried to provide a wide latitude for various opinions without detracting from the primary purpose of these forums, specifically, the discussion of self-sovereign computing on OpenPOWER systems.

According to most studies in computer security, social engineering is a significant risk.

What one person calls politics or culture war is what another person calls social engineering attack.

Raptor users appear to be motivated by the hope of having a higher level of security so I felt the coverage of social engineering attacks is relevant.

We would prefer that all forum participants be respectful of the legally protected attributes (gender, religion, etc.) of others, and for discussion on those particular topics to take place elsewhere.  This is primarily to avoid "hot button" topics that are not related in any significant way to the primary purpose of these forums, and is not attempted censorship, rather it is to keep discussion at least tangentially related to the core purpose of the forums.

As the post is deleted, I can't easily remember exactly what was in it and I can't reply to whether it was challenging any protected attributes.  Nonetheless, the focus of the post was on the social engineering and there was no intention to be disrespectful to those attributes.

Some extremists are nitpicking any post that mentions women.  I feel those people are overreacting and often trying to avoid responding to the substantive issue in a particular email or forum thread.  So they latch on to some metaphor or poor grammar and they cry murder.

[SiteAdmin]

We're not trying to censor anyone.

The point I was making is that other people sending demands to Raptor are trying to achieve censorship.  Once again, I would kindly ask you to consider posting copies of the demands you received from third parties.  Combined with the same efforts in other forums, I feel these demands amount to a pestering campaign.

Thank you for the clarification and for elaborating on the underlying concern.  We received a single nonspecific report which caused our staff to review the entire thread, at which point we simply decided that the posts in question had strayed so far away from the nominal purpose of these forums that we didn't want to leave the two posts up on our site.  In general, while we do understand the realities of open source politics and the inevitable friction that will occur between various groups, we would prefer that the focus remain on the technology and how to better work together towards our common goals, not trading various accusations back and forth.  Note we are not weighing in at all on the validity of either side of the protected attribute argument, or any actions taken by either side; we simply don't think that particular discussion would be in furtherance of the core purposes of this particular forum.  This is why both subsequent posts were removed, and the original post retained; the initial post (while of more of a general informational nature vs. anything OpenPOWER-specific) was still far more on-topic for self-sovereign compute and open systems development than the subsequent two postings from either user.

[pocock]

... at which point we simply decided that the posts in question had strayed so far away from the nominal purpose of these forums that we didn't want to leave the two posts up on our site.

The post by the other user had strayed and I had responded to it as a right-of-reply.  Together, I agree these messages had detracted from the original intent of the topic.  I noticed the same thing happened in multiple topics that I had created.

Note we are not weighing in at all on the validity of either side of the protected attribute argument,

Having looked at the messages again, I feel that the protected attribute was mentioned for factual purposes and not to vilify anybody.  It is particularly relevant when two or three people in a group all have the same protected attribute.

Looking at the bigger world of politics, I saw many news reports about a person with a weapon at Mar-a-Lago.  So far, all the news reports mention, in a factual sense, the person was a man.  They are not seeking to vilify men, they are just reporting a fact.

Very regrettably, when talking about certain open source software projects, certain protected attributes appear to have had an extreme impact on collaborators.  Whenever a straight white male is publicly humiliated, it is hard to defend that person without factual reference to the people who inflicted the humiliation.  Those references are not intended for the purposes of vilification or revenge, they are only for establishing fact.

If the person who disputed the thread has made any more specific accusation about vilification of the protected attribute then it would be useful to see their accusation otherwise it isn't possible to respond to it.

[TimKelly]

I haven't attacked you at all, Daniel.  This again is consistent with your far-right attitudes, where you strike out at people and then claim to be the victim.

In one of your posts, you compared yourself to a woman who says no, but in reality you are the relentless pursuer of Debian, who has repeatedly said no to you but you never walk away.  As for my attacking you as a "Debian developer," in fact, it is Debian who says you are not a "Debian developer."  Debian is trademarked.  Your contract with Debian was rescinded and any rights to use the name with it.  You are misrepresenting yourself.  A correct title could be "excommunicated Debian developer," but to represent yourself as an authorized Debian developer with commit privileges is a falsehood.

Your personal blog has repeated posts with anti-LGBTQ themes and support for far-right authoritarian strongmen.  I quote from your blog and show you have mental health issues, you respond by locking the thread.  I have never called for censoring your posts, but I will inform readers that you are not a shining white knight come to save the world.  In fact, we need to step up and defend the world against people with your world view.  You are causing harm constantly.

[pocock]

I haven't attacked you at all, Daniel.  This again is consistent with your far-right attitudes, where you strike out at people and then claim to be the victim.

In the same sentence, you say you haven't attacked me and then you try to demonize me with the "far-right" classification

In one of your posts, you compared yourself to a woman who says no, but in reality you are the relentless pursuer of Debian, who has repeatedly said no to you but you never walk away.

Debian diversity statement says everybody is welcome.  Therefore, if everybody is welcome but some people are being told "no", those people are victims of discrimination and the diversity statement is a lie.

Nonetheless, people can not say "no" to recognition of our copyright interest.  Saying "no" to recognition is plagiairism.

As for my attacking you as a "Debian developer," in fact, it is Debian who says you are not a "Debian developer."  Debian is trademarked.  Your contract with Debian was rescinded and any rights to use the name with it.  You are misrepresenting yourself.  A correct title could be "excommunicated Debian developer," but to represent yourself as an authorized Debian developer with commit privileges is a falsehood.

The email archives show the word Debian Developer in use from 1996 and earlier, many years before the trademark.

Most people understand a Debian Developer is somebody who has the skill, integrity and history of doing the work.  Those who tick all those boxes have the right to use the term Debian Developer.

I have repeatedly reminded you that these insults appeared at a time when I lost two family members.  Yet you keep repeating the same insults.

Your personal blog has repeated posts with anti-LGBTQ themes and support for far-right authoritarian strongmen.  I quote from your blog and show you have mental health issues, you respond by locking the thread.

There is nothing "anti-LGBTQ" here.

The blog talks about conflicts of interest.  It looks at heterosexual conflicts of interest and it looks at LGBTQ conflicts of interest with equal concern.  The gender is not the reason for those blogs, it is about the conflicts of interest.

I have never called for censoring your posts, but

I never said it was you.  I simply asked Raptor / the site admin to clarify who made those requests and show us exactly what they wrote.

[TimKelly]

In the same sentence, you say you haven't attacked me and then you try to demonize me with the "far-right" classification

You consider being identified as "far right" as "demoniz(ing)?"  Let's review a recent post to your blog:

"Invitation to live next door to George and Amal Clooney"

https://danielpocock.com/en/invitation-to-live-next-door-to-george-amal-clooney/

The suggestion is that this is a bad thing.  Consider that George Clooney uses his money and influence to purchase satellite time for photographing genocide and other war crimes, and Amal Clooney is active in pursuing ICC charges against Benyamin Netanyahu for his crimes against the Palestinian people.  In addition to living in a very nice area, I would consider it a privilege to live next to them.

I see you also manage to draw attention to a death that occurred on your wedding day.

Debian diversity statement says everybody is welcome.  Therefore, if everybody is welcome but some people are being told "no", those people are victims of discrimination and the diversity statement is a lie.

That is a correct analysis of the asymmetry in truly embracing diversity.  We have to accept all people, although we do draw the line at those who are causing harm.  In contrast, the far right uses the openness as a means to gain power, at which time they start calling for people to be harmed.

Nonetheless, people can not say "no" to recognition of our copyright interest.  Saying "no" to recognition is plagiairism.

You are confusing copyright and trademark. You can copyright your code, but you can not use a trademarked name without permission of the trademark owner.  You do not have that permission.

The email archives show the word Debian Developer in use from 1996 and earlier, many years before the trademark.

Again, "excommunicated Debian developer."

Most people understand a Debian Developer is somebody who has the skill, integrity and history of doing the work.  Those who tick all those boxes have the right to use the term Debian Developer.

No, "most people" in the open-source world understand "Debian developer" to mean someone who has commit privileges with Debian.  You do not.

I have repeatedly reminded you that these insults appeared at a time when I lost two family members.  Yet you keep repeating the same insults.

I have no idea what insults you are referring to.  I pointed out that you registered two dozen domain names with "debian" in them, lost two court cases, and have cost Debian by your own admission $120,000 in legal fees.  You keep drawing attention to the personal matters surrounding the circumstances without ever acknowledging that grief may have played a role in your poor judgment that has repeatedly caused harm to an open-source community.  Although obvious to myself as an outsider that your actions would harm Debian, that harm has been confirmed in correspondence with an official Debian representative.

There is nothing "anti-LGBTQ" here.

The blog talks about conflicts of interest.  It looks at heterosexual conflicts of interest and it looks at LGBTQ conflicts of interest with equal concern.  The gender is not the reason for those blogs, it is about the conflicts of interest.

When I read your posts, I see posts that are lying about why you are telling the truth.  It is a practiced technique among the far-right.  The language you use in commenting on LGBTQ "conflicts of interest" is very different than when you occasionally deign to comment on white males.  You don't simply identify that the LGBTQ individuals are violating conflicts of interest, you take pains to identify them as LGBTQ, even when they don't.  I never see a post in which you have identified a straight white male as "straight white male."  For example, in your posts that reference the endemic child molesting within the Catholic church, you don't identify the priests as "straight white male."  (I have to be specific that pedophilia and homosexuality are NOT the same thing, and pedophilia is a miswiring of the sexual brain very often caused by the child being molested who later tries to reclaim that lost power over their body by molesting someone weaker.)

I have never called for censoring your posts, but

I never said it was you.  I simply asked Raptor / the site admin to clarify who made those requests and show us exactly what they wrote.

I was pointing out that while I don't call for censoring your posts, you lock every thread I respond to.  Either believe in free speech (not hate speech), or don't pretend to defend it while seeking power over others.

[pocock]

your actions would harm Debian

So you are saying all the people who died are dead because of me?

[TimKelly]

So you are saying all the people who died are dead because of me?

I have a family member who has mental health issues.  Every position seems to be extreme.  The $120,000 you have cost Debian could have been spent on other things.  In a specific case, which you pointed out, life vests could have been purchased which might have prevented the drowning death of a Debian volunteer.   I never said you were the cause of anyone's death.

Again, I see all the hallmarks of mental health issues stemming from early childhood trauma that was reinforced later, with an alignment of far right values and beliefs through being misled about addressing injustices.  The injustices occur, but the prescription is not retribution and harm (being lied to about why we are being told the truth).  I truly believe Daniel could benefit from therapy and current anti-anxiety medications to calm the firestorm of conversations in his head.

[pocock]

Again, I see all the hallmarks of mental health issues ...

I see somebody pretending to be a doctor

Once again, if you are such a brilliant psychiatrist, please answer: are you telling everybody that the
Debian suicide cluster is all because of me and not because of the cultural defects of groupthink?

[TimKelly]

I see somebody pretending to be a doctor

Nope.  As I said in an earlier post in a thread you locked, "I think you should see a doctor about that."

Once again, if you are such a brilliant psychiatrist, please answer: are you telling everybody that the
Debian suicide cluster is all because of me and not because of the cultural defects of groupthink?

Extreme position exhibiting paranoia.  "I think you should see a doctor about that."

[pocock]

Extreme position exhibiting paranoia. 

Are you saying there is no Debian Suicide cluster?

Or are you saying that loss of life in such a group doesn't justify any detailed investigation and report?

"I think you should see a doctor about that."

Isn't it too late for people to see the doctor after they joined the there is no Debian Suicide cluster?

[TimKelly]

Are you saying there is no Debian Suicide cluster?

Or are you saying that loss of life in such a group doesn't justify any detailed investigation and report?

I think you might be misleading the readers as to why you are drawing attention to this issue.  The $120,000 you have cost Debian through their defending their trademark against your attacks might have gone to such an investigation.  Had your efforts to dilute the Debian trademark succeeded, you might have gained control over that trademark.  That would have given you a great deal of power.  I see nothing in your efforts to suggest benevolence on your part, and such anti-democratic efforts are characteristic of far-right techniques.

Alternatively, or perhaps congruently, you have a deep paranoia and can not see other interpretations of the events.

Isn't it too late for people to see the doctor after they joined the there is no Debian Suicide cluster?

I am suggesting you need to see a doctor.

[pocock]

Isn't it too late for people to see the doctor after they joined the there is no Debian Suicide cluster?

I am suggesting you need to see a doctor.

Have you ever paid any open source developers for the work we do?

Are you writing and publishing any code yourself?

Or you only contribute medical advice?