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

Andrey Fedorov me at anfedorov.com
Sat Jun 11 07:45:08 UTC 2016

Thanks, Rob. Sounds like some great stories on /wiki/86, as well as some
potentially horrifying ones. Again, nothing I've read about Jacob seems to
obviously justify banning him from a space as some of the examples on that
page do (e.g. intoxication, theft, physical assault). I'm not as worried
about any messages being forged as I am about this being a decision made by
emotion dominating and silencing reason.

In particular, I think it's really important to list exactly what "public
claims of sexual misconduct" this ban is based on and what the chain of
reasoning between them and the ban is. Based on what I read, I see reasons
to warn people about getting into a sexual relationship with Jacob unless
they are into enforcing / pushing boundaries also (as many powerful women
are!), but not for banning him from giving talks at a space. Perhaps I
missed something. Can someone please link and summarize the evidence?

Sure thing, Jim. I'll refrain from quoting Niemöller, and just say suppression
of discussion via emotional triggers is a really shallow rhetorical tactic.
I think we're better than that.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 8:46 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

> Thank you, Andrey,
>     It would have been difficult for me to find
> the links you included.
>     I'm sending this off-list so's not to promote
> more discussion (which might get heated...).
> On 06/11/2016 02:46 AM, 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> 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>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:
>>> 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
>>> 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/20160611/8430c721/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list