Dear @Codeberg,

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@Codeberg I just received this email, titled “Your recent Mastodon post” from @dpk on behalf of the Codeberg “Presidium”:

***
Dear Aral Balkan

In your Mastodon post at <https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/117041803584140945> you publically criticized a repository that was hosted on Codeberg, despite linking to an issue thread in which it was made clear that the content should be reported through our usual internal channels for moderation. The repository in question was reviewed by the moderation team and removed. We understand that you suffered reputational damage as a result of this repository’s content, but this does not justify damaging the reputation of Codeberg e.V. in turn. The moderation team is still a volunteer operation and sometimes it takes a few hours for someone to be available to deal with reports or to ensure that consensus exists.

We therefore warn you not to make posts of this kind that could damage the association’s reputation in future. Acting against the interests of the association can be grounds for exclusion from the membership (§5 (5) of the by-laws). If you have issues with content posted on our site in future, please report it to our moderation team at abuse@codeberg.org. In general, reports sent to that email address will usually receive a reply describing what action was taken once the moderation team has considered how to deal with the reported content.

Kind regards
Presidium
***

So, I have a problem with this.

My post in no way damaged the reputation of Codeberg. It publicly asked them to do something about it and to state, publicly, where they stand on an issue. An issue, may I add, that has to do with real people facing actual genocide as we speak. Not to mention I thanked them for making the right decision (https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/117043586669877395). If anything, until this email, it made the organisation look better. Unless, of course, opposing certain genocides is something that damages reputations in Germany.

I do not agree with the public issue being closed either. An issue was reported and the response was not “oh, this is serious, we’ll look into it”. It was, rather, “you reported it wrong. Report the same thing at this other place instead.”

And that other place is an entirely opaque internal system where no one gets to see what decision-making process is employed.

This is not the transparency that should exist in a member-run organisation.

So at the end of the day, I am the one being threatened with being removed from membership while the person who is actively trying to harm genocide victims (https://codeberg.org/Linux-Is-Best/) is still welcome on Codeberg?

This is a very insidious form of bothsidesism and, I can only imagine, is to ensure that I keep quiet in the future and to create a chilling effect where we cannot discuss certain things publicly for fear of reprisals.

Well, that won’t be happening.

I am sick and tired of people who cannot provide a proportional response when we asked to choose between people harming genocide victims on the one hand and those trying to protect them on the other.

If this means I cannot be a member of Codeberg, so be it.

Let me know if I’m not welcome there and I will leave.

And you can show the world that Linux-Is-Best is welcome and I am not. If that’s who you are.

#codeberg #israel #germany #zionism #genocide #ethnicCleansing #apartheid #settlerColonialism #fediverse #mastodon #transparency #ethics #morals

[adrian@mastodon.design]

@aral @Codeberg @dpk Whut? Are you not free to criticise the org if you are a member there? You didn't even slander them or anything, just pointed to the fact that they hosted this repo.

[mihamarkic@mastodon.social]

@adrian @aral @Codeberg @dpk Yeah, this is real weird response from codeberg. Not good.

[dpk@chaos.social]

@aral @Codeberg You were warned concerning your membership of the association, not your ability to use the site. Linux-is-Best is not a member of the association, they just have an account on the site. They were informed of the action we took in removing their content and the reason for it.

[dpk@chaos.social]

@aral @Codeberg We could not accept the situation where you claimed you had got the moderation team to remove content by public shaming, while as an association member you have other options to raise the issue within the membership, even besides the usual moderation report channels which are open to everyone (and which you cannot deny that you knew of, since you linked to an issue thread explicitly pointing to them). Unfortunately this lesson seems to be hard for you to learn.

[dpk@chaos.social]

@mathew @aral @Codeberg The imputation that we wilfully allow defamation and racism on the website is not public criticism, it is public bullying

[androcat@toot.cat]

@Codeberg @dpk

Your reputation is not harmed by someone talking about abuse.

Your reputation may be harmed by your response thereto, however.

We are not infants. We base our opinion of you on your actions. Not the fact that abusers exist.

Being an abuser is on the abuser.
What you do about abuse, that is on you.

And we want to respect you, so please do live up to the expectations.

@aral

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@dpk @Codeberg I claimed no such thing. I thanked you for making the right decision so people were updated on the outcome.

On the issue of public shaming (which this wasn’t, it was a public call for accountability and raising awareness of someone who is actively harming genocide victims), this you?

Have you received an email from the Scheme steering committee yet?

So I guess in my defence I was trying to protect genocide victims, not my own chair.

Maybe we should take a class together in whatever it is we apparently need to learn.

[anomnomnomaly@beige.party]

@dpk @aral @Codeberg

Let's see if I get the timeline correct here.
1: Issue reported
2: codeberg does nothing yet
3: Public comments posted asking something to be done
4: codeberg does something afterwards
5: public comments saying action taken after being publicly shamed about it
6: codeberg object and makes bullying threats of it's own after playing the victim card.

That seems to be the timeline... Nothing out of order there... perhaps a clarification if the 'moderation' steps taken were slower that could be expected or acceptable. Certainly nothing that makes it acceptable for codeberg to then attempt to bully a member by threatening their membership.

And good job, leaning into the Streisand effect and doubling down on idiocy

[dpk@chaos.social]

@aral Nothing in those toots was private. All that information, including those questions, is on the public mailing list of the Scheme WG. I know there are people following me because they’re interested in Scheme progress, so I gave an update here.

And, no, I am not trying to re-take the chair. The WG’s decision to ask for my reinstatement was made without my involvement except my confirmation I would still be willing to serve. That is also visible in the public log of the meeting of 28 July.

[dpk@chaos.social]

@aral Why are you trying to get involved in the situation with the Scheme WG anyway?

[ryanprior@mastodon.social]

@dpk @aral I can't read his mind, but it seems apparent he's pointing out that you're not above using social media to publicly criticize an association where you're a member, which is what you apparently emailed him to tell him he should have known better than to do, and to threaten his membership on that basis?

[dpk@chaos.social]

@ryanprior @aral There are good reasons we don’t discuss moderation in public, and why the moderation team is anonymous, which should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for two seconds

(and who maybe takes this whole saga here as an example)

[linamahmoud@mastodon.social]

@aral @dpk @Codeberg I hope you're doing well. I know everyone is busy, but I'm reaching out because my family still needs support. If you're able to donate or even share my campaign, it would make a huge difference for us. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for standing with us.

[joepie91@fedi.slightly.tech]

@aral I am trying and struggling to understand why things were escalated so intensely and quickly here.

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@joepie91 An ongoing genocide.

[precariousmind@neopaquita.es]

@dpk @mathew @aral @Codeberg and now we get to the transposition moment...

[joepie91@fedi.slightly.tech]

@aral well, that would be part of the 'struggling to understand'. I am well aware of the ongoing genocide. it is not clear to me how or why this leads to seemingly immediate escalation of what looks like a trivial moderation issue.

like, surely you understand as well as I do that demanding of arbitrary people (not involved with said genocide) that they immediately drop everything and put *this specific issue* (which is not part of their core competency) at the top of their priority stack at a moment's notice, is not a sustainable way to organize or campaign in the long term?

pressure should absolutely be put on not just those who perpetuate said genocide but also those who choose to (passively or actively) support it. but making such demands of people who have taken no position, while leaving no room for them to figure things out, just makes enemies of allies

[ryanprior@mastodon.social]

@dpk @aral I dunno what your history with social media is like but we've discussed moderation in public from the beginning, which we inherited from blogging, (it used to be called "microblogging!") where moderation was also discussed in public, extensively. People entrusted with non public information related to moderation shouldn't breach that trust, so it's a good thing nothing like that is going on in this thread.

[wrzky@kolektiva.social]

@aral @Codeberg

Welp, I smell tyranny.