[Noisebridge-discuss] [Noisebridge-announce] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob Appelbaum
me at anfedorov.com
Sat Jun 11 02:46:09 UTC 2016
Take jim's message as a request for documentation, not necessarily a
refusal to do his own research. After reading all the original sources I
can find, the accounts don't describe someone who I'd be close friends or
get in bed with, but that bar is a bit higher than "I never want to be in
the same room as him". The anonymous nature of the announcement and
non-public reasoning that led to it is definitely weird.
More generally (i.e. NOT about this case in particular): smear campaigns do
happen, and if whatever process is in place for banning folks doesn't
protect people from being targets, then being part of the community becomes
a risk for those who work on things someone might want to retaliate
against. That's not unequivocally a good or a bad thing, just something
that affects the nature of the community.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Ceren Ercen <ceren at ercen.com> wrote:
> Try doing the absolute minimum of Google searches before complaining or
> waving conspiracy theories around. You'll come off as less uninformed.
> Don't complain when we don't do your Google searches for you.
> And for the rest of you who "never noticed anything wrong".... that's on
> you. And you may want to take a moment and examine yourself, to consider
> why you overlooked years of warning signs.
> Also, I'm only disappointed that there hadn't been discussion of this
> problem on this list, yet, but as I'm not physically located nearby SF this
> year, I decided it wasn't my place to open one.
> On Jun 10, 2016 9:06 PM, "jim" <jim at well.com> wrote:
>> I subxcribe to the Noisebridge-announce mailing
>> list. Today I received email from
>> noisebridge at riseup.net
>> sent to the Noisebridge-announce list. Here is the
>> entire content of the body of the message:
>> Below is my reply to the message:
>> This is coming out of the blue for me. I have
>> heard no claims against Jake for any reason.
>> My questions are
>> * who wrote this
>> * what is the basis of the claims against Jake?
>> The anonymity of the writer makes me suspicious.
>> The lack of information behind the primary claim
>> makes me suspicious.
>> This may be an artifact of a smear campaign.
>> I'm presenting my concern to the Noisebridge-discuss
>> mailing list hoping for information. I really hope
>> this does not develop into an emotional discussion.
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss