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