From the readings and in your opinion, are Codes of Conduct necessary for technology companies, organizations, and communities? Do they serve a valid purpose or are they just another form of political correctness? What do you make of some of the Codes of Conduct above? What jumps out at you as reasonable and what seems unreasonable?
Should technology communities be concerned about things and thoughts other than technology? I guess I should rephrase it—is it possible for technology communities to avoid talking about things other than technology?
It makes sense for codes of conduct to exist, because they provide a baseline for acceptable speech in the communities. I don’t doubt the good intentions behind codes of conduct, but it’s incredibly hard to define their proper boundary. Oftentimes, the codes, as pointed out by the anonymous response, are based on a libertarian philosophy, that whatever someone is doing, as long as they don’t hurt other people, is none of our business.
But many codes go so far as to specify that people shouldn’t “offend” each other, intentional or not. This is, however, an incredibly, dangerously low bar, because it’s arbitrarily subjective to the listener. If I’m a vegetarian and someone jokes about vegetarians, is it better to directly confront them about their thoughts, or is it better to silence them? These codes of conduct try to be open about the communities’ standard of speech, but by silencing arbitrarily “offensive” opinions, they’re potentially destructive to meaningful discussions around touchy issues.
It’s ironic to see the anonymous developer masking their own identity, hiding from retribution. If the codes of conduct are truly about protecting people, does it protect this developer, who had done no wrong to their peers? It sounds like a tool for silencing dissent, for bypassing any discussion at all, for executing the will of “the community.”
These codes of conduct are written by human, too. They’re not magical spells that generate rainbows and sunshine and happiness—they’re inherently political.
In a way, they work the same way as the recent “right not to be offended” movement in US colleges. Micro-aggressions are real, but demanding the offenders to be silenced doesn’t lead to a shared understanding of the situation. Especially in colleges, where everyone is constantly seeing each other for many years, avoiding these confrontations doesn’t change anyone’s opinions. To create an environment where the minorities are truly welcomed, silence is not an option—dialogue is.
So in my mind, a reasonable code of conduct would be a running, constantly-amended historical document. We collect discussions around touchy issues, and outline what the community agreed to be unacceptable. Violators are allowed to explain and discuss their actions. They’re like laws, and everyone is a lawmaker.
Utopia at last!
I guess I’m assuming a basis that we are all commonsensical creatures, capable of meaningful discussions, while the anonymous online communities are constantly overflowing with hate. It’s a depressing thought, but does my imagination only apply to the real world, where people can actually talk? Does it apply anywhere at all?