[florkbork]

Let's restate your points a bit, but using the words "ethics" rather than CoC.

Is publishing an ethical standpoint a "trouble making"? Depends, doesn't it? What if you examine the most common top ethical viewpoints you are aware of. For me, it's loud groups like say, PETA, Extinction Rebellion, etc who are fairly populist.

Are they making trouble? Sure. But for whom? Would you personally do what these people are doing? Probably no. Would you personally do what the people they are "making trouble" for are doing? (In my example, Animal harm, empowering climate change?) I am going to suggest that you would probably say "no, I don't want to harm things/people/etc; as I would probably feel bad for doing it and being personally responsible".

If thought through like this - even if your examples of ethics are not what I chose - can you see the value in a strong, clear ethical position, even if it's to warn people? Can you see that it might challenge authority (trouble making), but that is not a bad thing a lot of the time?

[A_D_E_P_T]

> Let's restate your points a bit, but using the words "ethics" rather than CoC. Is publishing an ethical standpoint a "trouble making"?

Most software projects are ethically neutral and don't need a "standpoint." In tech, those "ethical standpoints" are often tacked-on by people who want to use them as a tool to exercise social control over other contributors, including project founders and visionaries. (There tends to be, in any given Western organization over n people in size, a clique that's really into this.)

I have no idea how CoCs are used in PETA, but obviously groups that have ethics as their core focus -- which includes religions and social welfare groups -- have long lists of proscriptions, policies, etc. I don't think that any of it necessarily applies to open-source software, though. It's apples to oranges.

> If thought through like this - even if your examples of ethics are not what I chose - can you see the value in a strong, clear ethical position, even if it's to warn people?

Well, that's precisely my point: The CoC itself is the warning. It's usually bad news in itself -- an exposed surface that's weaponizable against contributors who give to the project in good faith.

[yakshaving_jgt]

I think you should understand quite how bad your examples are. I understand the examples you gave are given in the best of intentions, but this reads as pure blissful ignorance.

PETA literally funded a terrorist convicted of arson.

> A page from the 1995 annual tax return (form 990) of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), showing a $45,200 payment for the ``support committee'' of Rodney Coronado, a felon. Mr. Coronado was convicted of arson in federal court for the 1992 firebombing of a Michigan State University research lab.

---

> Would you personally do what the people they are "making trouble" for are doing?

Would I eat meat? Yes.

Would I keep animals as pets? Yes.

Do I think it's ethical for humans to use animals for service, e.g., guide dogs for the blind? Yes.

Do I think it's ethical to use animal models in medical research? Yes.

All of these things, PETA are against.

Further:

- https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/animal-righ...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Coronado

- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg77615/html/C...

[ranger_danger]

Can you provide sources for these claims?

> animals as pets

This seems to say they are perfectly fine with pets: https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

> guide dogs

Seems to imply they are not against service animals in general: https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/monkeys-arent-pets-...

Not trying to defend anyone, just looking for objective evidence.

[yakshaving_jgt]

> Not trying to defend anyone, just looking for objective evidence.

Fair.

## guide dogs

> [PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk] regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, … is wholly opposed to their use. She has had at least one dog taken from its owner.

- https://archive.is/6IIo1

## medical testing

> Medical research is immoral even it it's essential

> Even If Animal Research Resulted In A Cure For AIDS, We’d Be Against It

- https://consumerfreedom.com/press-releases/153-even-if-anima...

## animals as pets

- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk

- https://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/quotes-from-the-...

## Bonus fun story

- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-f...

---

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The utter insanity of PETA is actually very well documented, so if you have an evening, grab a bottle of wine and go down that ~rabbit~ hole.

[shiroiuma]

PeTA murders pet animals that are given to their "shelters", because they don't want people to have pets. They are not "perfectly fine" with pets at all.

[ranger_danger]

source?

[florkbork]

The examples are deliberately chosen as extremes, where they have an ethical standpoint.

I suggest the examples work even better with the context you add - you do not have to agree with the ethics or like them!

On the "funding terrorism" insinuation...

Did PETA publish an ethical statement about: - Protecting university infrastructure - Obeying authorities - Agreeing with negative media coverage about them

I sincerely doubt it.

Their misdeed in your view is donating $45k for a guy's legal defense, who was the spokesman of the ALF, not PETA. By that logic, any government funded public defender is the taxpayer condoning murder, robbery, etc. We can both agree objectively that isn't true - guilt by association is the fallacy there; funding a legal defense is separate from the act requiring the legal defense.

I would argue you have this talking point because of a concerted media effort to brand things as "Eco-Terrorism" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Scare - and that is a coordinated effort to change the focus.

BUT, let's assume PETA are exactly as you say.

Scenario 1: they publish no standpoint, pretending to be a local book club who have simply enjoyed the prose of Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.

Scenario 2: as above, but they publish their ethical standpoint upfront and it is easy to access.

After you have gone a few times, one day a chap stands up, say he's the Lorax; has been a member for years; is head of the Once-ler Action Committee demands everyone hijacks a plane to fly it into the nearest highrise, because he's for the trees; buildings use timber and the North American Squirrel is suffering.

In which scenario are you more surprised? In which scenario were you given the most choice about how you can interact with the group; apply your own standards of behavior or what to expect? In which scenario are you better equipped to object ("we care about the wellbeing of squirrels, but your case is driven by a flimsy ideological argument that has little to do with the shared values!") In which scenario are you more likely to seek external help from an authority; because it is trivial to identify the extremism is out of place?

This is my point - having no stated ethics or CoC is objectively worse when radical/extremist viewpoints creep in due to malicious actors; vs at least publishing a basic standard.

[yakshaving_jgt]

> By that logic, any government funded public defender is the taxpayer condoning murder, robbery, etc.

No it isn't. We all have to pay our taxes. PETA didn't have to pay Rod Coronado.

> I would argue you have this talking point because of a concerted media effort to brand things as "Eco-Terrorism"

They firebombed research facilities to effect ideological change.

This is the textbook definition of terrorism.

> In which scenario are you more surprised? In which scenario were you given the most choice about how you can interact with the group; apply your own standards of behavior or what to expect?

The problem is the very obvious Motte-and-bailey fallacy that you're falling for here, as so many people do.

You brought up NixOS earlier. I like NixOS. I fund some of the development. I attend some of the conferences and meetups.

Any reasonable person in the community would be against violence, I'm sure you'll agree. The last time I attended a NixOS conference, I saw many attendees with… Actually you know what, I've written about this before. You can read it if you wish, and you might then understand where I'm coming from.

https://jezenthomas.com/2024/11/I-feel-unsafe/

[veeti]

Extinction Rebellion is actually the perfect example, because they are a bunch of protesters so high on their own farts they think blocking ordinary commuters on electric trains will stop Big Oil [1]. And as you can see from the video, bringing this sort of shithead attitude to actual hard working folx will only backfire on you.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHOr2WH7V1k