Djoga'Ro
moonstruck
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
- Messages
- 2,504
vs.
?
Woot, they matter a lot. Or are you saying, they no effect on anything?
Stackoverflow got a new Code of Conduct, most downvoted post ever
- Thread starter rohezal
- Start date
rohezal
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,712
This was badly worded. Your chromosomes do matter a lot in biological questions. But I will be polite and friendly to everyone, independent of their chromosomes. And I will treat you equally, no matter if you have XX,XY or other chromosomes. Your value as human and my tolerance of your lifestyle depends not on your chromosomes.
Yes it is a religion, it contradicts itself. Nice finding btw. I did not notice it. Maybe they mean "you have adopt men traits to be in this group, this is oppression of people with women traits". Were men and women are just a collection of traits, which were learned during childhood.
Last edited:
... a Bunny of mass destruction? Run away! Run away!
Well, how about a thing like Grammarly, that actually analizes who you are talking to and auto-fixes the pronouns?
kuru
Who the heck is Stephan Kramer?
Reading this thread I invented exactly that, but refrained from posting about it. And, once again, I see that it's been done before.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Yeah that fixes all problems. I'll still be here, unrelenting, when it doesn't.
Because any digital platform that doesn't script away a language is clearly hostile. Retreat to the safe-space bunker that is
your same old analog, but now worse life of forever changing landscape of exclusionist platforms you call inclusive,
in which friendless people reach out to for outrage about the situation and people to "ally" with.
Seen it all before.
I'd like to, for once, give credit to a mod, as Waller retired the forum rules that he created, albeit silently.
TEAR DOWN THAT, WALLER
Because any digital platform that doesn't script away a language is clearly hostile. Retreat to the safe-space bunker that is
your same old analog, but now worse life of forever changing landscape of exclusionist platforms you call inclusive,
in which friendless people reach out to for outrage about the situation and people to "ally" with.
Seen it all before.
I'd like to, for once, give credit to a mod, as Waller retired the forum rules that he created, albeit silently.
TEAR DOWN THAT, WALLER
Last edited:
PCXT
Very Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 277
- Age
- 36
These CoCs are made for the one thing: To keep advertisers or shareholders. Modern Internet works because advertisement. For some anti-logic known only in western countries, hard disk space is getting cheaper so hosting goes more expensive, and pages must rely on advertising to live.
The problem is that, as in old proverb, "appetite grows with eating". Advertising got stuffed to the point of vomiting about 10 years ago and using of adblockers became a habit of many Internet users. So the next thing was running software on users' computers for malicious purposes - doesn't matter is it siphoning data, sending messages or mining cryptocurrency, the idea is the same. Using script blockers is not as popular as adblockers, but I see it more and more frequently.
Now imagine the modern, business and selling-focused Internet trying to place ads in the late-90s "bazaar" Internet of private sites, random early forum or mailing lists discussions and "I-send-this-to-you" pages. Imagine some blog of random "Internaut" writing about everyday things, projects, things pissing off and what he had eaten on breakfast and got parasites, maybe sometimes publishing some works of fiction (or, for maximum fun, a 18+ furry pictures), and then BOOM: a typical modern ad there!
Because you just can't blatantly write in the rules "don't publish negative reviews of companies ....", "advertiser is always right" or even "ostracize people who would then buy more from our sponsors", these codes end with being totally self-negating, but it's not their objective to be consistent.
To keep the advertisers in, it is needed to censor negative reviews and publish the material in the topic which advertisers want. What is against their interests, is (if not self-censored) removed. It has nothing to do with openness and maintaining the community. The discussion is a normal part of the community, and, sorry, if it is a ritual of clapping hands to the ad in the top of page it's not a community but some sick performance of multilevel marketing on the Internet and has nothing to do with discussion.
Of course, as I always write, this positivity and openness is the same "openness" as "healthy" are fast foods in advertisements. It ends quickly when it comes to groups which would spend less money when adding value to community. I have a first-hand experience in it, as recently it focuses on ugly ones.
The problem is that, as in old proverb, "appetite grows with eating". Advertising got stuffed to the point of vomiting about 10 years ago and using of adblockers became a habit of many Internet users. So the next thing was running software on users' computers for malicious purposes - doesn't matter is it siphoning data, sending messages or mining cryptocurrency, the idea is the same. Using script blockers is not as popular as adblockers, but I see it more and more frequently.
Now imagine the modern, business and selling-focused Internet trying to place ads in the late-90s "bazaar" Internet of private sites, random early forum or mailing lists discussions and "I-send-this-to-you" pages. Imagine some blog of random "Internaut" writing about everyday things, projects, things pissing off and what he had eaten on breakfast and got parasites, maybe sometimes publishing some works of fiction (or, for maximum fun, a 18+ furry pictures), and then BOOM: a typical modern ad there!
Because you just can't blatantly write in the rules "don't publish negative reviews of companies ....", "advertiser is always right" or even "ostracize people who would then buy more from our sponsors", these codes end with being totally self-negating, but it's not their objective to be consistent.
To keep the advertisers in, it is needed to censor negative reviews and publish the material in the topic which advertisers want. What is against their interests, is (if not self-censored) removed. It has nothing to do with openness and maintaining the community. The discussion is a normal part of the community, and, sorry, if it is a ritual of clapping hands to the ad in the top of page it's not a community but some sick performance of multilevel marketing on the Internet and has nothing to do with discussion.
Of course, as I always write, this positivity and openness is the same "openness" as "healthy" are fast foods in advertisements. It ends quickly when it comes to groups which would spend less money when adding value to community. I have a first-hand experience in it, as recently it focuses on ugly ones.
ClockworkCoder
Chaotic Neutral
Citation please.
PCXT
Very Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 277
- Age
- 36
Rather from observation of the Net and from my friend's web business initiative. Generally there is a certain situation in development of a service, in which its plan may go in two paths: It can become a full-paid service, ending as a "walled garden", or become an ad- and surveillance-powered service still giving "freemium". In the second case it introduces various censorship (and forces self-censorship) as advertisers are cranking the money valve now, in the first it's only a bit smaller.
I was observing my local blog community since it started (and, to be honest, yes, I even tried to write there) and they tried very hard to go to the first path, but failed and decided to go with ads. First blogs which went to thin air for violating some "codes": Reviews.
Another similar observation is with a well known (for their leaks too) hosting service, as they switched surveillance scripts on their sites recently. Everything which would look bad around the ads became "violating rules", unfortunately some really useful retrocomputing sites went out too.
Of course I'm not writing that all CoCs are bad. There should be rules in every community and many times even a simple netiquette works very well. However, for some reasons I don't understand, many things unacceptable in netiquette-based communities I remember became a new standard in modern "social media".
P.S. I wanted initially not to write this, but about this my friend's business, the thing I have seen when he got first advertiser on a contract was just pathetic. I have some remains of keeping promises and I think that when not directly cheated I should not, but things he was doing were... this was just some freakin' worship. And it was not the single case. In such situations introducing the rules to "evaporate" users which do not comply to new owner's policy covered as a welcoming community is seen as the optimal solution.
I was observing my local blog community since it started (and, to be honest, yes, I even tried to write there) and they tried very hard to go to the first path, but failed and decided to go with ads. First blogs which went to thin air for violating some "codes": Reviews.
Another similar observation is with a well known (for their leaks too) hosting service, as they switched surveillance scripts on their sites recently. Everything which would look bad around the ads became "violating rules", unfortunately some really useful retrocomputing sites went out too.
Of course I'm not writing that all CoCs are bad. There should be rules in every community and many times even a simple netiquette works very well. However, for some reasons I don't understand, many things unacceptable in netiquette-based communities I remember became a new standard in modern "social media".
P.S. I wanted initially not to write this, but about this my friend's business, the thing I have seen when he got first advertiser on a contract was just pathetic. I have some remains of keeping promises and I think that when not directly cheated I should not, but things he was doing were... this was just some freakin' worship. And it was not the single case. In such situations introducing the rules to "evaporate" users which do not comply to new owner's policy covered as a welcoming community is seen as the optimal solution.
Last edited:
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
Do the CoCs stop users criticising advertisers or shareholders, if they avoid being a dickhead about it? I can't find the CoC to read on the stackoverflow site when I checked just now
PCXT
Very Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 277
- Age
- 36
Unfortunately. This seems to be no more the Internet of early 2000s, when author put an ad in the page and got something (money, transfer or hosting) in exchange.
What I see now, when advertisers and sponsors come in, they are treated as new owners. Projects go totally re-calibrated, initial objectives are changed and contracts/promises broken. Although not related to CoC, this effect can be best seen in www browsers land, where they have different "forces" sponsoring them and they sell data to these sides. In Chrome which started as an open-source platform, it's Google, in Firefox which was initially designed for customizability and privacy, it's Cloudflare. Both of these companies have their sins, excluding them from attaching the word "privacy" to them as many times they shown that the privacy is not their best side (e.g. running unknown code on user's computers, banning privacy-oriented services users, being located in a country with not sufficient privacy-related laws).
Back to sites, the sentence above is just sufficient to be censored from many communities sponsored by... yes, these companies. The problem is that it's not a spam, it's not making up facts, so the best way to censor it is to squeak "toxic behaviour! toxic behaviour!" and jump until mods remove it.
What I see now, when advertisers and sponsors come in, they are treated as new owners. Projects go totally re-calibrated, initial objectives are changed and contracts/promises broken. Although not related to CoC, this effect can be best seen in www browsers land, where they have different "forces" sponsoring them and they sell data to these sides. In Chrome which started as an open-source platform, it's Google, in Firefox which was initially designed for customizability and privacy, it's Cloudflare. Both of these companies have their sins, excluding them from attaching the word "privacy" to them as many times they shown that the privacy is not their best side (e.g. running unknown code on user's computers, banning privacy-oriented services users, being located in a country with not sufficient privacy-related laws).
Back to sites, the sentence above is just sufficient to be censored from many communities sponsored by... yes, these companies. The problem is that it's not a spam, it's not making up facts, so the best way to censor it is to squeak "toxic behaviour! toxic behaviour!" and jump until mods remove it.
directive0
Very Active Member
Seems pretty reasonable to me but whatever. Rawwwr oh noes people want to make the scene inclusive what an outrage. Oh no I'm so outraged I'm falling to sleep.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
I'd argue against your assertion that firefox was originally designed for privacy. For sure it was designed to be customisable but I had to make use of that customisability to block tracking cookies and as much javascript as I can get away with; that didn't come by default. Of course that was less necessary back then, before the rise of cryptominers and state hackers, all we had to worry about back then were a few script kiddies.
The fact they launched DoH when as far as I know only cloudflare were providing resolvers for it, but at least that stops your ISP tracking every site you visit. By now at least there are many public DNS over HTTPS providers and I've just switched mine over to use one of those. Someone somewhere has to be aware of the DNS names you're trying to resolve, and at least now I can trust someone other than my ISP should I choose to.
The fact they launched DoH when as far as I know only cloudflare were providing resolvers for it, but at least that stops your ISP tracking every site you visit. By now at least there are many public DNS over HTTPS providers and I've just switched mine over to use one of those. Someone somewhere has to be aware of the DNS names you're trying to resolve, and at least now I can trust someone other than my ISP should I choose to.
Last edited: