I know this kind of thing might not be very popular on HN, but I like their anti-meritocracy statement:
> Gracefully accepting constructive feedback.
> Showing empathy and kindness towards other community members.
Yada yada, seemingly inclusive and tolerant then goes on to add a catch all list where every possible action can be deemed unacceptable, getting you expelled everywhere and "identification of the participant as a harasser to other members or the general public."
Anti meritocracy is a cover for the most intolerant.
> Anti meritocracy is a cover for the most intolerant.
Having a written set of guidelines that define the behavior expected seems like...I dunno, a good idea?
Unfortunately life drove me away from the project, especially now that I work remote and barely leave my home, but every now and then I feel like contributing again just because of how nice everyone is.
And, yes, I believe the world would be a better place if we followed these rules with many projects regardless of the field.
Btw, there are some interesting facts about the history of the word, "meritocracy": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy#....
No one is saying ban the word meritocracy, but people are saying that if you're arguing for one, you've missed the point.
But for a while, the UK actually didn't do that. New universities were created, "grammar schools" were mostly replaced, new hiring practices adopted, and the stranglehold of the establishment was broken a little bit, for a little while.
That was because as ridiculous as the original idea might have been, good people with good intentions started to believe in "meritocracy", and used the idea to make changes.
We know[1] that a more diverse group creates better group outcomes than a non-diverse group where specific individuals may have better performance. Even from a wholly selfish perspective for the people running a project, prizing diversity of qualified individuals over a pure meritocracy is the right play.
From a "making the world a better place" perspective where some altruism is shown, it also helps to acknowledge that not everyone has all the same advantages and tailwinds so that it is fundamentally more difficult for them to have had all the same opportunities and advantages, and providing those opportunities and advantages to them gives them that chance to even the playing field. The amount of unconscious bias built in to humans also means it is difficult for us to be effective judges of ability for those that are not like us. You don't have to be racist/exist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. to have built in biases - you just have to be human. They're difficult to overcome without explicitly stating goals around it.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&as_vis=...
> The result of [social] categorization processes may be that work groups function more smoothly when they are homogeneous than when they are more diverse … This analysis is corroborated by findings of, for instance, higher group cohesion (e.g., O'Reilly et al. 1989), lower turnover (e.g., Wagner et al. 1984), and higher performance (e.g., Murnighan & Conlon 1991) in more homogeneous groups …
> In contrast to the social categorization (and similarity/attraction) perspective, the information/decision-making perspective emphasizes the positive effects of work group diversity. The starting point for this perspective is the notion that diverse groups are likely to possess a broader range of task-relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, and members with different opinions and perspectives … Corroborating this analysis, some studies find an association of diversity with higher performance and innovation (e.g., Bantel & Jackson 1989).
> In their simplest form (a main effect of diversity), neither analysis is supported. Evidence for the positive effects as well as for the negative effects of diversity is highly inconsistent (Bowers et al. 2000, Webber & Donahue 2001, Williams & O'Reilly 1998) and raises the question of whether, and how, the perspectives on the positive and the negative effects of diversity can be reconciled and integrated.
The case for workplace diversity needs to be argued on social justice principles, because there isn’t enough evidence for the economic efficiency argument.
Such as creating a platform for people to listen to music for free by sharing it with others without paying the artist?
But there's no evidence it's factually correct.
And Bandcamp's model is based on selling tracks and albums with free previews, which is entirely different to free listening.
YouTube, no. They take down videos with copyrighted material.
It says that sexual harassment is bad and that racism is bad, and using jokes to "ironically" do things like that is also bad.
>punishing people for jokes
Again, we're talking about sexual harassment and racism. It's important not to leave that part out.
I find this way of engaging with the problem to be profoundly misguided in two ways. One, it's a failure to correctly evaluate the relative scale of the two problems, and to consistently think and speak clearly about them in terms that reflect their relative scale.
And secondly, it mistakenly sets up the two problems as being in a relationship of interference with one another, such that talking about one is used to mean we should stop talking about the other. Instead of saying "this statement that racism is bad and sexual harassment is bad is a statement I do not support" it would be more helpful say "yes, that is a problem, I agree, we need to solve it. And meanwhile here's this other thing, but don't let this other thing detract from the importance of the first problem or imply we don't need to actively work on the first problem."
People shouldn't use jokes as a cover for racism, sexism, etc. We know people do this. We should do things to stop it. No one is saying you can't make whatever jokes you like in private with people you know won't be offended, but they are saying that those jokes can be harmful to people they want to have in their community, and that you can't say them in that community. It's their right to do so.
People also shouldn't try to get others fired over things like people talking about dongles and forking, assuming they're actually talking about dongles and forking. If someone approaches you and makes a joke about how they want to fork you with their dongle, well, it's pretty obvious what they mean. If you overhear someone talking and hear the words fork and dongle, well, it's not so obvious and we probably shouldn't get them fired.
That being said, it sounds like the joke was at least in part actually a sexually charged joke about a "big dongle" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 - though the forking seems to have not been intended to be sexually charged. This is perhaps another reason that people should consider their words - if you just made a joke about a "big dongle" and then immediately say "I'd fork his repo," there's a chance it's going to be interpreted in a sexual manner because of the context.
Making a joke about "big dongles" in public is probably not something you should do. Someone being offended doesn't automatically mean they're right, but it's also not a high bar to not make dick jokes around thousands of other people that you don't know and don't know how they'll take it.
> Intentionally posting or disseminating libel, slander, or other disinformation.
Let's face it. It's just a policy that allows them to expel anyone that doesn't fit their views, whatever that may be.
Their "view" is that sexual harassment is not something they want on their platform.
Without a written code of conduct, there are still values, views, and norms, usually created and run by the most disruptive members who are free to behave in any way they see fit and ostracize those who that behavior hurts.
> If a community member engages in .... up to and including expulsion from all Funkwhale spaces
Except musicians apparently
>We're sorry but funkwhale.audio doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Am I just misinterpreting it or do people supporting it just not thought more deeply about what it is they're supporting?
Really? All social change is good for the field of software development? Utter nonsense. This product itself is, if anything, a rejection of the social change towards centralized ad-supported streaming services.
> We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a right.
I don't have a right to work as a software developer? Last I checked, I lived in a free country where I can do what I want. This is some authoritarian language, implying that people should be ejected from the industry if they don't play according to one person's set of rules.