[Noisebridge-discuss] [Noisebridge-announce] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob Appelbaum

[Rob M]

In the past week I've seen far more negative evidence of rape and safe
space issues about Jacob than I've ever seen about more minor
infractions on the 86 page (https://noisebridge.net/wiki/86).  I do
think there should be an open place for people to appeal claims made
against them... I have a feeling that if such a channel existed at NB,
it wouldn't do Jacob very much good given the enumeration of grievances
multiplying against him.  But if I ever dose off at NB, it's cause I'm
waiting for things to compile/ build/ or just resting my eyes cause it's
been a really long day at the terminal. 

About the 'who' question, you can do some snooping on the key with a
couple console commands/ web searches.  The message was placed their by
some persons with access to a very old bot sitting on NB's wiki.  It was
cool to see the message was signed, but it was signed by someone
(*group) holding noisebridge at riseup.net, which was made and uploaded
today.  Some people take their reputation's very seriously, so seriously
that they decide to remain silent it situations where it's ethically
questionable to do so.  That's an aspect of human nature that's hard to
for us to reconcile as we look at ourselves --you actually see that
acknowledged in many of the testimonials on Jacob's new home page. 

Anyway, you can see signers of the noisebridge at riseup.net key coming in
by looking up the keys web of trust status.  It looks like a pretty
trustworthy Noisebridgy key to me. 

https://gist.github.com/TheNotary/ee2bf65c378214b6713f420c28b579d6

On 06/10/2016 07:46 PM, Andrey Fedorov wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:jim at well.com>> wrote:
>
>
>              I subxcribe to the Noisebridge-announce mailing
>         list. Today I received email from
>
>         noisebridge at riseup.net <mailto:noisebridge at riseup.net>
>
>         sent to the Noisebridge-announce list. Here is the
>         entire content of the body of the message:
>
>         https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge_Statement_on_Jacob_Appelbaum
>
>
>
>
>         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
>         <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>     Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>     <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>     https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160610/f2bee6d7/attachment-0003.html>