----------------------------------------

	----------------------------------------
	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.