---------------------------------------- | |
Enforced anonymity | |
September 24th, 2018 | |
---------------------------------------- | |
Gopher has been filled with threads on the topic of anonymity [0], | |
but I want to take a different tack. There's a storm brewing in | |
the form of Codes of Conduct for online communities. I have | |
OPINIONS on these things, and the only appropriate place for | |
opinion on the internet is hidden in dead protocols. | |
Codes of Conduct attempt to accomplish a GOOD. They attempt to | |
ensure that individuals are not exposed to unfair prejudice. This | |
is a movement toward equality, which it itself is also a GOOD. (I | |
have argued in the past that I prefer liberty over equality, but | |
that is not a comparison of good vs bad, but rather a personal | |
stance on which is a greater good.) So far, we're all good here. | |
Codes of Conduct are also weapons. They are wielded by the | |
oppressed and marginalized with a powerful blow aimed at those | |
they feel have transgressed. Is this a GOOD? Providing | |
a reciprocal power dynamic is an expression of vengeance, not of | |
justice. It does not guarantee liberty or equality. It guarantees | |
a shifted power-base and a new set of mores to be navigated, or | |
else. This is not good. This is bad. | |
Hold off on the pitchforks. Go re-read the second paragraph again | |
if you're getting steamy at me. | |
If you're sitting there feeling like a Code of Conduct is a vital | |
tool in your arsenal as an objectified person, a minority, or | |
other disenfranchised group member, I can totally understand why. | |
It's good to not be shit upon or taken advantage of. But at the | |
same time, role reversal perpetuates a never-ending cycle of | |
anger. "It's our turn," is the voice of a failed morality. It may | |
feel good, but it gives no high ground and it leads to more | |
suffering for more people. | |
(I'm skirting around going into some deeper ethics talk on the one | |
hand, or going off into sci-fi territory and making a bunch of | |
Dune parallels, but I'm going to leave it alone and get to the | |
point instead). | |
"So what, tomasino? If Codes of Conduct aren't the answer, what do | |
you think we should do?" | |
Thanks for asking! First, I don't believe it is a necessity for | |
a criticism to offer an alternative solution. It is okay to point | |
out that something is wrong but not have a better alternative | |
prepared. And guess what? I don't! I have a ridiculous alternative | |
that we most definitely SHOULD NOT DO. I'm going to share it with | |
you as a thought exercise. | |
Here's my idea: 100% enforcement of anonymity. Boom! Meritocracy | |
blind to identity politics can only be 100% guaranteed if there is | |
no identity to politic. Go ahead and create your company, your | |
online group. Share your code, grab commits and share and merge | |
and whatever else technocrats do. But... no signatures. No names. | |
No personal sharing. You want an online identity, grab a number, | |
or we'll pull a string of dictionary words and assign them to you. | |
Now everyone is safe, has an equal voice and can be judged by | |
their own contributions. You want a code of conduct in the mix? | |
I got you covered. It's got 2 rules: | |
1) If you share your identity, or provide information that | |
establishes a personal identity with the community, you're out. | |
2) If you share another person's identity or personal details | |
about them, you're out. | |
This magical, mystical utopia actually sounds good to some people, | |
I'm sure. But it's not. It overlooks the beauty of human | |
interactions and the infinite possibilities for the advancement of | |
our species. It's an act of fear. Don't do it. Seriously, please | |
don't do it. Also, cool it with the Codes of Conduct. Protect | |
people, don't burn them. | |
And yes, Linus is an ass. | |
[0] I was really going to go look these up, but then I got | |
distracted. Take my word for it. There were a lot of posts on the | |
subject earlier this year. |