Comment by ploum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ploum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You are perfectly right that asking people to not care about the laws of a country is problematic. For personal safety and also as a moral stand point.

But that should not be a reason to not fund conferences in those countries, conferences which are a way to learn, to discover new things.

What do you think about conferences organizers, of every country, having to put on their website a little explanation of the laws of their country.

Each explanation would be something:

"In our country, the law forbid XXX. We are very sorry for the people concerned by this law and we are sad about those laws. We would ensure that the conference space is a safe space but they should be aware of those rules still apply in the whole country.

In every case, always choose safety. We are missing you, we hope to have the chance to meet you in another time.".

I feel like installing a tradition of such a disclaimer for every tech conference in the world would:

1. Force people to acknowledge issues in their own country (instead of minimizing them). And I guess every country has its own problem.

2. Show support for the victims of those laws and, indirectly, showing supports for the victims in their own country

3. Advance the cause, change mentality. It forces locals and politicians to be confronted with the fact that international visitors (which every country is trying to attract) may disagree to the point of not coming to the conference.

4. It would be nearly risk-free for conference organizer as it could also be defended as a polite way to ask attendees to respect the law.

> But that should not be a reason to not fund conferences in those countries

How would you feel about the PSF (or any other society you sponsor) helping conferences in places you'd not be able to attend because you simply would not be safe there? I understand there are good reasons for funding conferences in countries that would be hostile to many PSF members, because not all people who'd attend to such conferences agree with the intolerance (by law or by custom).

> "In our country, the law forbid XXX"

I would not wish the PSF to be seen as supportive of such behavior.

" helping conferences in places you'd not be able to attend because you simply would not be safe there? "

I’m avoiding visiting lot of countries where I know that people like me are not safe. Sometimes to the astonishment of my family "but, seriously, there’s no risk. It is a touristic country". Yep, but they put people I feel connected to in jail. I will not go. But I would be glad if they have more hacker-type events.

One country where I don’t feel really safe anymore is USA (at least some part of it). Lot of people cannot attend conferences because they can’t enter USA. Yet, it probably makes sense to still fund conferences in the USA.

So why not everywhere else, even if some people cannot attend?

> How would you feel about the PSF (or any other society you sponsor) helping conferences in places you'd not be able to attend because you simply would not be safe there?

I would feel very good, because those places are often ignored from such events. A conference in a place is done first for the locals. Saying to all of africa "sorry you can't have a conference this year because the westerners that have 10 a year would not be able to come" is what would make me feel bad. Add on top of that coming to western conferences from africa is usually way too expensive for the median income there. Oh and travel issue for passports when getting into the US or Europe.

I've been reading this whole thread as "westerners being entitled to go to an african conference, run by and for people in africa"

I agree with you, but conversely, the organisers shouldn't feel entitled to Western funding either, in that case.

Is the PSF western "by design" or "de facto", the latter being the foundation having "accidentally" only western people on board? In theory the PSF should be worldwide with people from everywhere. Otherwise we should call it "EU+US PSF".

However the reality is, it is staffed by westerners and funded by western companies. So it's a de-facto western foundation.

Of course, it's not an accident, but let's not kid ourselves: Python was originally developed by a Westerner, in the West, and the vast majority of PSF funding also originates in the West. To look at that history and then be surprised that it's run by Westerners seems silly to me.

> In theory the PSF should be worldwide with people from everywhere.

Why?

I never said being surprised. I think we agree on the state we are in.

As for why, well, precisely to avoid the bias at hand here. The tech, despite originating from the west, is what it is: a tech. Especially something as ubiquitous as Python, which is far from being scoped to the west.

We go to great lengths for equity in such boards, promoting openness and such: more women, more LGBT+, people of color, ... But even black people that are included are most often than not are afro-americans living in the west, and not africans living in africa. We always forget about foreign users that are also a minority, except a remote one we can shrug off, unless they are vocal enough.

That said, I acknowledge it may not be possible, the foundation likely being an US nonprofit, so integrating foreigners in the board may be extremely difficult.

> the foundation likely being an US nonprofit, so integrating foreigners in the board may be extremely difficult.

As far as I know, it's not a problem. At first glance, PSF board and officers bios appear fairly international currently.

A foreign controlled, foreign benefitting organization that sends nearly all contributions to foreign organizations might not be tax exempt in the US, but that doesn't sound like the PSF.

> Is the PSF western "by design" or "de facto"

Since diversity and inclusivity are core values, I'll dodge the question and just say it's inclusive by design.

There's a HUGE difference between:

"Our country taxes alcohol stupidly high, and nudity is 100% OK"

And

"Women are second class citizens and owned by their male counterparts. And we put gay people and trans people to death."

As much as I hate saying it, it doesn't matter who the individuals in a country are, and how tolerant they are. The laws by the ruling power are what you have to follow.

And fuck no going to a country based on Muslim Sharia. I know their book, and their brand of hate. Call it 'islamophobia', but I'd also be enslaved or executed if I stepped foot on their territories.

Last time I checked, as an apostate, I'd have a death penalty waiting for me in many countries that operate under such religious laws.

Also, if they know I am an apostate, and they ask me that at the border, I'll have to choose between death because I am an apostate, and death by a likely more painful method because I am an apostate and I also lied to a customs officer.

even mentioning politically sensitive topics is not risk free in some places.

expecting this from every conference could potentially put conference organizers at risk for criticizing their local laws or culture.

at best this information can be shared by global institutions. so the PSF could issue their funding accompanied by such a statement

Every place is a tradeoff. The US can be inaccessible through sheer travel cost too.

And it is absolutely true that it is a western double standard. Football tournaments in gulf states and all.

I was more upset the top comment in this thread is "shitting on human rights is just a difference of opinion" apologetics.

I mean, sports organizations are widely regarded as horribly corrupt and more-or-less evil by anybody who cares about this kind of stuff and looks into it (I think?). It isn’t really a double standard unless you expect the whole “West” to share an opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com