@Shrigglepuss @YKantRachelRead
"I still stand by that it's impossible to be flawless when doing anything like this particularly involving interpersonal conflicts, community safeguarding etc, it's unreasonable to expect perfection"
The thing is that this whole debacle demonstrates core problems with the methodology behind the bad space: namely, instead of relying on a distributed system based on the community building up knowledge collectively it relies on a small selection of trusted authorities that get to become the centralized judges, and it starts by importing gigantic lists from those trusted authorities and then whittles them down instead of trying to only add an instance to the list in the first place if there is evidence to justify it being there, which means that there is inherently a guilty until proven innocent tendency in the system itself.
"and it's not lost on me that absolute perfection is expected from Ro in order for him to be trusted at all in contrast to the leniency given to those that will tell lies about him. I hope more people are noticing that too."
Funnily enough that's precisely a point Ro made recently in his posts, but it is very disingenuous. We are not expecting absolute perfection, we are expecting a methodology in building a list that is not fundamentally flawed — an approach to building it that actually cares about evidence and not accusing marginalized and largely powerless people of heinous things on the basis of no evidence. One that isn't massively centralized and doesn't rely on trusting certain authorities (some of whom I don't think were good choices). And more importantly, we're pointing out actual harm that was done, and getting angry about it bc it was fucked up — should we simply not do that bc "its a work and progress"? I thought we didn't like the "move fast and break things" silicon valley approach