[qcl820DV34]

> and after over a year of debate

There was no "year of debate".

You came to the mailing list and announced it for the first time as a finalized decision already,

without any prior debate with the original team.

The "board" you cited as the body which allegedly discussed it did neither join the mailing list discussion,

nor were you willing to hand out their contact info.

It's all public for anyone to see on the mailing list archive:

https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5526...

https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/

[kstrauser]

WTF. These are some of the first things I clicked through on that page:

- https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5534...

- https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5534...

Gee, I can't imagine how that mailing list could ever be toxic.

[FergusArgyll]

So that's what this is about! I wish instead of dancing around the issues and coming up with reasons to hate the project, ppl would just say "I don't like his politics" and he can say "I don't like yours either" and then any new readers will instantly get it

[raffraffraff]

If his definition of woke mind virus is "identitarianism", then it's agree that it's fucking awful. But I wouldn't call it "woke mind virus".

Identitarianism is a cancer, that has been fed via social media algorithms. We seem to have invented a machine for rewarding all of the wrong incentives. Who would have thought that phenomena like audience capture & polarised thought bubbles would be in the palm of the hand, directing thoughts and forming unbreakable opinions on an array of issues that otherwise wouldn't even be on the radar?

I don't think that this is a left, right or in between thing. Identitarianism had infected the entire political spectrum.

BTW: Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't take the Wikipedia definition of "identitarian movement" and identitarianism. I'm thinking entirely about identity politics. "If you're associated with person X you must be Y", or "If you believe A you must be a B". Highly policed thought bubbles. Ostracism. Cancelling.

As a result, today, with technology that can enable mass communication of thought, there are important conversations that can no longer happen in society.

[dyauspitr]

As your average progressive, I agree that I don’t like identarianism. When you have 8-15 years old putting a lot of effort into defining themselves as a “non binary, trans feminist pansexual” it gutturally feels wrong. These kids should not be wasting their time and energy on asinine pursuits like this at that age over performing well academically and over developing their physical prowess. I preferred the 00s where it was generally considered taboo to talk/ask about ethnicity/religion/sexuality.

Unfortunately with that perspective, I end in in the same camp as unabashed bigots and real Nazis.

[raffraffraff]

Yep. This situation doesn't do the "cancellers" much good either. What they want to do is eliminate the 'evil person' from society. Wipe them from social media. Block them. Even get them fired. Make them disappear.

But here's the problem. This whole phenomenon is most prevalent in western style democracy. You cannot take that person's vote. You can engage with them and try to change their mind (but also be open to having your own mind changed too, otherwise it's a disingenuous enterprise). Or you can eject block and cancel. If anything, that just drives them further from your social/political group. Hence the person who you blocked and cancelled starts to look around at the other "so called evil people" outside the bubble, and realise that many of them might be refugees from pleasantville , just like you. You can only see your former bubble after your pushed or pulled out of it.

Bubbles can suck people in, but they can also push people out into the gravitational pull of other bubbles.

[dyauspitr]

Humans tend towards being tribalistic. All ideas are not equally received because in my opinion some ideas are easier to accept because of that biological basis. We should all know that being tribalistic (own race/ethnicity/religion) has generally and continuously throughout history caused most of the world’s ills. From that perspective I’m tentatively in support of cancel culture. It seems like a non violent way to suppress ideas that groups easily uptake though deep down we know that those ideas are wrong and counterproductive.

[tardedmeme]

Usage of the phrase "woke mind virus" is itself a symptom of identitarianism. Only identitarians use the phrase.

[tardedmeme]

Why is it always people like this who run projects that should be good? SimpleX, Xlibre, Freenet Locutus, that's three, and I'm sure there are more.

Edit: do they all like the letter X, too? I think in this list it's just a coincidence, but maybe?

Edit because I can't post a new comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46608061

[Timwi]

Wild theory: maybe it's because in order to stay focused, passionate and dedicated to a project, you have to have a passionate mind dedicated to a narrower viewpoint. The more open-minded you are, the more likely you accept that detractors might have a point, and then increasingly realize that it's impossible to please everyone.

[SuperNinKenDo]

Disagreeable, passionate people are passionate about doing projects that go against the grain. It's really obvious to anybody actually asking the question instead of just being rhetorical and not giving it any actual thought. The answer is a commpetely obvious one, but one which makes some people uncomfortable, such that they'd rather not confront it, lest they have to confront its implications.

[sanity]

Thank you for putting me in such great company!

[sanity]

Not sure what you mean but I stand by every word I said in that thread.

[outside2344]

A wise boss of mine, after reading a set of threads that I wrote like this, asked me to go think for a day on the difference between "being right" and "being effective."

Some of the things you say in these threads might be "right" but I can assure you that many of them are not effective, which is counterproductive to the goal you are trying to achieve.

[sanity]

I prefer to say what I believe to be true rather than live in fear of how people looking to take offense might misconstrue something.

A culture where people are expected to constantly self-censor to avoid bad-faith interpretations is unhealthy and corrosive.

[trinsic2]

This reminds me of something someone said. Something about assume everyone is coming from a place of good intent. Even if they are not, you can communicate with people more effectively without bringing in a form of bias that ends up infecting everything.

Just because you have a belief about something doesn't make it right to always assume the worst from people and that you always have the best answer.

I tend to avoid people that don't come from a place of good faith. And I feel that attacking people because you might be right about something is coming from a place of bad faith and isn't always the best course of action. There is a place for that, when it comes to your freedom being violated or something, but when it comes to having discussions with people, we are all human. Ego can be a determinant.

[KaiserPro]

> I prefer to say what I believe to be true rather than live in fear of how people looking

Again, as we are wondering into tumblr style debates here (ie not listening and just saying what you think they said)

There is a difference between being "right" and being "effective"

Or to put it another way: "perfect is the enemy of good"

However I will break it down a bit more. You agree with me that there is such thing as a horizon of "acceptable opinion" for people? Some have larger windows, some much narrower.

If we agree on that, I would ask, what happens if someone goes in hard (rhetorically) with a viewpoint that is outside of "acceptable opinion"? You begin to discount their opinion, regardless of evidence. Or it requires a much high bar to accept _any_ opinion from that person.

Which leads back to the original point, you may be correct, but you are unable to persuade anyone else that you are correct, because you are not speaking the same language and gently pulling them to your viewpoint.

Hence the "you can be right, or you can be effective"

[bglusman]

You can stand by things you said but also learn from them/from people’s responses to them…. For instance, you declare someone’s response virtue signaling… This hit me in a funny way, partly because it’s valid, it’s true, there is a lot of signaling that goes on you learn to see, virtue and otherwise… but also because of how insidious a criticism it is, because it reframes a debate away from correctness and towards who said it, whether they’re posturing…

I think it’s a category error and an ad hominem attack to bring it up in a debate with someone. It doesn’t mean your wrong or can’t still beleive they were virtue signaling, if that’s what you mean by standing by what you said, but more than one thing can be true and that being your reaction is not honest engagement with the criticism… I don’t care think it’s about the joke very much, it’s not especially funny but not all humor has to be, and I don’t love their reaction to it either, but I think you’re confusing the feedback you’re getting here and there and probably elsewhere that your opinions should change… a sibling comment spoke of being right vs effective, and there’s something to that, but there’s also being right vs having a growth mindset, about being open to genuine conflict that sometimes brings new perspective or insight… But that doesn’t happen when one side shuts down the other with ad hominem attacks or uncharitable assumptions. To be fair, it doesn’t happen online in mailing lists or discussion forums at all very often. Maybe you only get these kinds of reactions here and when people seem more real to you in person you engage differently… I know most people engage differently online than in person, and different pseudonymously than using real names. Someone else here compared you to Linus, and there’s probably something there? There’s no doubt you brought some vision and insight to both these projects, as he did, but something changed for him some years back that was a growth moment and caused him new perspective on how he engaged with people online. The same could still happen for you, and it wouldn’t mean you were giving in to a “woke mind virus”, it would mean you were growing.

[bglusman]

I can’t respond to your response below but I fully agree “a lot of online criticism is not actually about truth-seeking or honest disagreement”, but I believe by ignoring the principle of charity, you undercut your own credibility and value. You may be able to show people how and where they’re in the wrong by demonstrating how THEY’VE made motive and framing the entire point, WITHOUT personally ascribing that as necessarily being a character weakness or hypocrisy or unconcern for the truth, but perhaps just a error on their part as well all make sometimes… just my $0.02

[sanity]

You need to remember the context.

I was in the midst of obviously baseless allegations being made against me, not because of anything I actually said but because some very nasty[1] people disagreed with a naming decision I had made.

If you ever find yourself in that situation you are way past the principle of charity.

I'm not saying I couldn't have handled it more gracefully and probably would today, remember this was an obscure mailing list post from 3 years ago that someone dug up.

[1] This is not to suggest that everyone who disagreed with my decision behaved badly, it was a small minority

[avwert]

HN is full of those types of people, always wanting to tear others down over perceived offenses while contributing nothing much themselves.

[somerandom2407]

I just want to quickly jump on what you said about Linus. I know a lot of people look at his change and see it as a "growth moment", but my view is that he was forced to change by a growing body of people who take relatively extreme actions against those not seen to be towing the line. There was another group of people like this in history. We rightly condemned that evil group and their actions, and we were once more tolerant and open-minded towards one-another as people. I miss those days.

[happymellon]

You think that Linus changed because of threats of violence?

[somerandom2407]

I think it starts with social coercion, intimidation, exclusion, economic pressure and ostracism long before it builds into the confidence to take more overtly violent measures. I don't know him, but it certainly appeared as though he succumbed to these pressures, given the timing of things. I hope people doing these things take some time to reflect on their actions and how closely they follow a dark path we've seen before.

[subscribed]

If you think this is a correct communication style for someone who thinks they're a leader, I suggest getting an assistant to write your correspondence, or maybe some socialisation bootcamp.

This is grim.

If you stand by it I'd say good.... luck, yeah, good luck, you're singlehandedly the gravest enemy of the project.

[sanity]

Yes, I stand by what I wrote. I'm not going to pretend otherwise because someone dug up an old mailing list post.

If you think a specific statement was wrong, harmful, or dishonest, then explain why. I'll wait.

[outside1234]

It is hard to take anyone seriously that says “The woke mind virus.”

That is what is wrong with it.

[sanity]

If the use of a single phrase in an obscure three year old mailing list post is enough to make you dismiss someone entirely, that probably says more about you than it does about me.

[evilos]

That phrase is on par with "chemtrails" and "vaccine truther" with its ability to vaporize one's credibility, if used unironically as OP did in those emails.

[angoragoats]

Holy shit. I’m a long-time admirer of freenet and you just single handedly destroyed any positive view of the project I may have held. Get a fucking grip and seek help if you can’t.

[spankalee]

> The woke mind virus, more formally postmodern neo-marxism, is the greatest threat to civilization today.

"The woke mind virus" really? You used that non-ironically? This is not something a serious or sane person would say for real.

[sanity]

You'd be surprised how mainstream these views are outside certain bubbles.

[nullstyle]

No, i wouldn't be surprised how ignorant, selfish and deceitful other Americans are, you included. Mainstream isn't the same as right.

Dude like this asshole would be fine with us keeping drinking fountains and lunch counters segregated, because thats how we've always done things.

Remember folks, there’s no such thing as “too much perspective” and when you get it wrong you look like this silver -haired, privileged , rich as fuck bigot.

[sanity]

The personal insults really lend credibility to your argument.

[tardedmeme]

inside other bubbles.

Why do you get to bypass the HN global rate limit?

[DANmode]

Probably manually lifted.

[foobarian]

Lol. It's like Linus but crunchier

[sanity]

I'm told I kinda look like him too. There are worse people to be compared to.

[FEELmyAGI]

Curtis Yarvin is a much better comparison, what with the inscrutable decentralized network software and being a culture war crusader

[sanity]

Someone digs up obscure 3-year-old posts to a defunct mailing list and suddenly I'm a "culture war crusader" sigh

[DANmode]

“crunchier”?

[ArneBab]

There was no public debate, but he did start to talk to devs 18 months before, and the devs told him quite clearly that they strongly object to repurposing the name.

And that repurposing the name would cause lots of damage.

[sanity]

> There was no "year of debate".

Incorrect, I raised the issue with the lead maintainer over a year prior to that announcement.

> You came to the mailing list and declared it as a finalized decision.

As the project's architect I'm entitled to make decisions about the project's future direction.

> It's all public for anyone to see on the mailing list archive:

> https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5526...

I stand by every word I said in that mailing list thread.

[qcl820DV34]

> Incorrect, I raised the issue with the lead maintainer over a year prior to that announcement.

The previous lead maintainer, Steve, voiced their frustration with your decision here:

https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5526...

To which you sent a brash reply, which sounds like you don't know Steve's position in the community:

https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5526...

To which the current lead maintainer, Arne, said he agrees with the sentiment of Steve:

https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5526...

So if you discussed this with Arne for a year, then why does he agree with the frustration of Steve?

And even if the discussion with Arne happened, it still was a backroom decision:

Two people are not representative on a project with plenty of developers and an active community.

> As the project's architect I'm entitled to make decisions about the project's future direction.

A sense of entitlement is not a leadership quality.

A leadership quality would be to admit a mistake:

That repurposing the name was not only bad for the original project,

but also for the new one (because these discussions will haunt it forever),

and to then rename the new project to a fresh name which no other software used before.

[sanity]

As the FAQ explains, the existing maintainers didn't agree with my decision, but I stand by it - particularly in light of the fact that we now have a working decentralized group chat on the new Freenet, something that the old architecture could never have supported.

Whether or not it was the right decision will be determined by the outcomes, which so far are promising, because we have a working network that does things that the old architecture could never do.

[16bitvoid]

I also like how his first response to a reply to the announcement (and multiple others) was "who do you speak for?" while simultaneously framing a discussion with a single person, in private, as a good faith effort to hear from the community with the implicit assumption that that one person spoke for the community.

[sanity]

Endeavors that make decisions based on what will please the loudest people in the near term normally run into the ground pretty quickly. There was never any obligation to obtain the approval of "the community", whatever that is.

Nothing about the name change prevented existing users from continuing to use the software just as they had been doing, and many of them said they agreed with the decision.

I honestly only ever hear about this drama on HN, it's a non-issue anywhere else we get attention.

[16bitvoid]

And endeavors, which are supposedly for the benefit of everyone, that listen to no one run into the ground even quicker.

That's beside the point though. I was pointing out the hypocrisy. This sidestepping and deflection seems to be a trend with you, both here and in the mailing list.

No point in responding to me though if it's just to grandstand. You've made it apparent to me that I want nothing to do with your project. Cheers.

[sanity]

> And endeavors, which are supposedly for the benefit of everyone, that listen to no one run into the ground even quicker.

Good then that we haven't, in fact we set ourselves a very difficult goal and achieved it. Not that we don't still have a lot of work to do.

> You've made it apparent to me that I want nothing to do with your project. Cheers.

You seem to have nothing to say about the substance of what we're doing so I'll get over it.

[jazzyjackson]

You’re making it personal which is against site guidelines, chill.

[abno525]

For anyone confused, link is cited badly and mail did not get deleted.

https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg5526...

[itsthecourier]

seems freenet is not free after all, maybe a rebrand to ianet would be more appropriate

[DANmode]

A correction, based on the text as written:

they were saying they debated with themselves,

before making the decision.