Riseup Networks

[gratipay-bot]

https://gratipay.com/riseup-networks/

(This application will remain open for at least a week.)

[chrisdev]

I'm not seeing any hooks to suggest that openwork is possible on this project such as a public issue tracker with documentation for self-onboarding.

[chadwhitacre]

Ping @riseupdotnet. Reviewing your Gratipay Team application here, following on from https://github.com/gratipay/gratipay.com/issues/3853 ...

[chadwhitacre]

@chrisdev Indeed. The to-do URL points to a GitHub account with no public repos, and the onboarding URL points to help documentation for users of the service, not collaborators building the service.

These limitations could potentially be overcome, but I would go further and actually make the case that Riseup clashes too strongly with the Gratipay brand. From their purpose statement:

We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression. [...] We work to create revolution and a free society in the here and now by building alternative communication infrastructure designed to oppose and replace the dominant system.

As previously discussed in #34, Gratipay is not an ally in the struggle against capitalism:

Gratipay is not anti-capitalist. We're actually actively trying to work within the existing global financial system (aka, capitalism).

Also, we've established in #55 that an "overly strident tone" clashes with our brand. "We value thoughtful and thorough discussion and deliberation as means of reconciling wills and making decisions." In my view, calling for struggle and revolution clashes too strongly with this value.

[riseupdotnet]

Hello,

Our actual github account is: https://github.com/riseupnet -- the one that is connected on gratipay is the old one that has no repository there. The majority of our repositories are at https://github.com/riseuplabs and at https://gitlab.com/groups/riseup

As to your other comments about us clashing with the gratipay brand, I think that it would be fair to say that we are, like graitpay, also trying to work within the existing system, there isn't really anyway around that. I'd disagree about your reading of our tone as being overly strident, nor combative...but I could see how this might be subjective. It certainly wasn't written to be that way. I think that #34 does a good job of explaining where we are coming from (in fact they started to use GratiPay to support us!)

[mattbk]

Our purpose is to aid in the creation of a free society, a world with freedom from want and freedom of expression, a world without oppression or hierarchy, where power is shared equally.

Sounds like Gratipay to me...

[chadwhitacre]

Our actual github account is: https://github.com/riseupnet -- the one that is connected on gratipay is the old one that has no repository there. The majority of our repositories are at https://github.com/riseuplabs and at https://gitlab.com/groups/riseup

Okay, so plenty of open work, though we'll need to talk about links ...

[chadwhitacre]

I think that #34 does a good job of explaining where we are coming from

ParisKiwi's purpose is "to list practices, bands, collectives and to communicate about events without using GAFA services." Revolution didn't come up when we were reviewing them.

Our purpose is to aid in the creation of a free society, a world with freedom from want and freedom of expression, a world without oppression or hierarchy, where power is shared equally.

Sounds like Gratipay to me...

Dunno. We share power, sure, but not equally. What would that even mean? That the person who has been around five minutes gets access to the bank account and the database? Of course not (right?). So what does it mean? I suppose: equally with regard to gender, race, class, etc.?

I'd disagree about your reading of our tone as being overly strident, nor combative...but I could see how this might be subjective. It certainly wasn't written to be that way.

"Struggle," "revolution," "fight," "allies," "oppose", and "overcome," are strident and combative words. Is Riseup's use of them overly strident? Well, what are Gratipay's brand thresholds for stridency and combativeness? I think the thresholds are quite low. We list combativeness explicitly as an anti-value, with no modifier.

we are, like graitpay, also trying to work within the existing system

@riseupdotnet Okay, but the impression I get is that you're working within the existing system in order to "create revolution [] to oppose and replace the dominant system." What do you mean there?

[webmaven]

@whit537, would we have rejected Ubuntu and Canonical if they had applied while Bug #1 was open? Would we reject the FSF today? After all, combating the paradigm of proprietary software is still a driving force for the Free Software Movement...

Just because Gratipay got (painfully) schooled on what it could and could not currently do within existing legal and economic frameworks, leading to Gratipay 2.0, let's not fool ourselves that we aren't looking for ways to expand that envelope, change many people's default behavior, and grow the economy in ways that would ultimately be just as disruptive to many of the current incumbent financial institutions as Free Software and the more 'corporate friendly' Open Source have been to the incumbent software industry of the 1980s and 90s.

IMHO, @riseupdotnet should be approved.

[chadwhitacre]

would we have rejected Ubuntu and Canonical if they had applied while Bug #1 was open?

I see nothing in Bug 1 about revolution or struggle ... and certainly not against capitalism: in fact, it's framed precisely in terms of "market share."

After all, combating the paradigm of proprietary software is still a driving force for the Free Software Movement...

I don't see revolution or struggle on http://www.fsf.org/about/, either. FSF's mission is "to promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users." That's primarily a positive mission, and secondarily a defensive one. It's not offensive, defined in terms of revolution or struggle against an enemy ... and, again, certainly not against capitalism: "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."

[L]et's not fool ourselves that we aren't looking for ways to expand that envelope, change many people's default behavior, and grow the economy in ways that would ultimately be just as disruptive to many of the current incumbent financial institutions as Free Software and the more 'corporate friendly' Open Source have been to the incumbent software industry of the 1980s and 90s.

Sure! That's a positive, generative vision. Quite different, in my view, from the negative rhetoric of revolution and struggle. "Grow the economy," yes. "Struggle against capitalism," meh.

[webmaven]

@whit537, Re: Bug 1:

I see nothing in Bug 1 about revolution or struggle

It is certainly anti-proprietary software, and specifically anti-Microsoft. it certainly frames MS as an opponent.

Re: FSF:

It's not offensive, defined in terms of revolution or struggle against an enemy

Umm, you have to dig a bit deeper nowadays than the top level. This reflects the long history of the FSF. Today, the revolutionary language is more likely to be in embedded in specific campaigns, like:

• "Stand up for your freedom to install free software" (struggle)
• "Cancel Netflix"
• Note the raised fist along with 'Freedom from corporate control' in this 'Upgrade from Windows' infographic (struggle, revolution):
• 'Resist Bulk Surveilance' (struggle):
• Much of the 'Defective By Design' site: "We are working together to eliminate DRM as a threat to innovation in media, the privacy of readers, and freedom for computer users.", "These companies don't want a free web. They think they make money by limiting your freedom." (enemies), Ten years after Sony's DRM-enabled crimes, the fight for user freedom continues (enemy, fighting), and so on.

Is this sort of rhetoric closer to the surface of Riseup? Yes. Does Gratipay prefer (currently) to walk much more softly? Yes. Do I think Riseup would be more effective with an anti-corporate rather than an anti-capitalist stance (or at least be more specific about what they mean by 'capitalism')? Yes.

Should this lack of nuance preclude Riseup from being approved? I think not.

[chadwhitacre]

Is this sort of rhetoric closer to the surface of Riseup? Yes. Does Gratipay prefer (currently) to walk much more softly? Yes. Do I think Riseup would be more effective with an anti-corporate rather than an anti-capitalist stance (or at least be more specific about what they mean by 'capitalism')? Yes.

Should this lack of nuance preclude Riseup from being approved? I think not.

I see "walking much more softly" as a core element of Gratipay's brand identity, not just a preference that we currently happen to have. The "War and Open Source" section of the latest draft over on https://github.com/gratipay/inside.gratipay.com/issues/319#issuecomment-161720938 spells out more of my thinking here:

The United States Marine Corps manual on the philosophy of war, aptly entitled Warfighting, defines war with disarming honesty: “The essence of war is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose itself on the other. War is fundamentally an interactive social process. […] The object in war is to impose our will on our enemy” (3–4).

War is not a social process that Gratipay wants to participate in, if we can at all help it. Rather, we want to participate in a different “interactive social process,” open source. The essence of open source is a vigorous effort by many consenting, interdependent, and mutually respectful wills, each trying to harmonize with the others. The object in open source is to unite our will to our friends’, for the sake of the project. Moreover, we have an established process — forking — for peacefully handling situations where our wills are irreconcilable.

The contrast between war and open source, in other words, could not be more stark. This is the context in which we at Gratipay have come to see attempts to introduce “war” as a metaphor for social relations within the open source community. War is a real thing, and it sucks, even when it’s a necessary evil. Framing our social relations as “war” cheapens actual war, and imports a terribly sad social process into a situation where most of us — though not all of us — can be grateful as heck to not experience real war. There’s enough war in the world. In open source, we’re thankfully able to be doing something else.

I see the review of this Team as going hand-in-hand with the review of that post, over on the Gittip crisis ticket. @kaguillera has asked that we leave two weeks for feedback over there, so I suppose we should do the same here.

[elijh]

Since capitalism, in the most conservative estimate possible, kills at least seven million people every year, anti-capitalism distinguishes itself by actually taking human life seriously. Even the Pope is anti-capitalist:

Capitalism is a subtle dictatorship that condemns and enslaves us. -- Pope Francis

Now, there are many reasons why one might posit that capitalism is awful, but for some reason or another we should put up with it. Defenses of capitalism general fall into these categories:

• The alternatives are worse: The thinking here is that capitalism may suck rotten eggs, but the Soviet Union was way worse, so capitalism is the only option. As any Soviet scholar will tell you, the USSR was not socialist and not communist, it was an authoritarian dictatorship by a certain class of state managers. There are a million ways to organize the economic aspects of society, and the particular flavor of free market fundamentalism that we currently practice is a specific political project by certain powerful sectors of society, not a natural or necessary way that capitalism or the economy must be organized.
• Capitalism didn't create inequality: The idea here is that the suffering and inequality of the world existed before capitalism and so it is not the product of capitalism. The nature of inequality now, however, is a direct result of capitalism. The history of capitalism is one of forcing people, at gunpoint, to enter into a system where all they have to sell is their labor. Also, the millions of people who die every year from inequality could all be easily saved with a small slice of the assets of the richest 1%.
• Inequality is worth the cost of innovation: There are many ways to spur innovation, but paying people more or putting them in competition with others does not increase the productivity of labor that requires primarily mental work.
• Democracy requires capitalism: It is true that capitalism and the idea of individual rights and civic life as separate from private life developed in tandem, but is it manifestly not the case that capitalism is particularly or necessarily compatible with democracy. China is obviously capitalist, but not democratic. There have also been many places throughout history that have been deeply democratic but not strictly capitalist (Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War, Paris in the French Civil War, Sweden in much of the post WWII period, and so on). Also, capitalism may allow for some form of civic democracy (although studies show the powerful have all the say), but capitalism requires a dictatorship in all the economic aspects of our lives, which are arguably much greater.
• Capitalism is efficient: No, markets are efficient (in certain circumstances), capitalism is often spectacularly inefficient (to pick one example, it has never been able to handle negative externalities).
• There is nothing we can do about it: Maybe not, but that is not an ethical stance. The ethical stance is to try to improve the world.
• It is natural: The idea is that somehow there are natural laws, like survival of the fittest, that mean that capitalism is the right and natural expression of how the universe works. This is such bullshit it doesn't even deserve comment.

There is one other defense, the "honest defense", which goes like this: capitalism is really bad for most people in the world, but it is great for me, so I will fight to the death to defend the status quo of extreme inequality. This is, of course, a textbook definition of hypocrisy.

So, is anti-capitalism extreme? Hardly so. The world around, the debate about how to curb the excesses of capitalism and how to balance social good versus the power of capital is the central debate within society. The US is just shielded from these debates because we live in a bubble of willful ignorance. Heck, half the ruling parties in Europe and Latin America are socialist, with explicit anti-capitalist party platforms. Even the US, in the depression, was largely socialist.

The only thing that is extreme is to accept with blind faith the received "common sense" wisdom that capitalism is good and natural and to reject all history of the long and ongoing struggles against capitalism in this country and around the world.

[tshepang]

@elijh I enjoyed reading your Comment. I however think the debate is controversial, and Gratipay simply wants to steer clear of controversy, given the pain of the previous experience.

[chadwhitacre]

Thanks for joining us here, @elijh. I read through your comment in email when you first posted it, and, revisiting it now, I notice that you've softened "being anti-capitalist is the only ethical position that takes human life seriously" to "anti-capitalism distinguishes itself by actually taking human life seriously." An interesting edit, which deepens the conversation here!

That said, I'm still pretty strongly inclined to characterize Riseup as engaged in "an interactive social process in which two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills are struggling to impose themselves on the other." Would you say that's a fair characterization of Riseup's anti-capitalism?

[mattbk]

Weekly bump so we can move on with approving or rejecting.

[webmaven]

I'd like to keep this conversation about your application going, @elijh, rather than let it sputter out into a 'reject by default'.

Do you have an answer to @whit537's Q?:

I'm still pretty strongly inclined to characterize Riseup as engaged in "an interactive social process in which two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills are struggling to impose themselves on the other." Would you say that's a fair characterization of Riseup's anti-capitalism?

[webmaven]

@whit537, given the examples I gave above from FSF campaigns which make it clear it is 'struggling to impose it's will' on the world of proprietary software, would you reject the FSF if they applied?

How about the EFF, based on the combative language at https://act.eff.org and https://act.eff.org/action that makes it obvious it is 'struggling to impose it's will' on the surveilance state?

[chadwhitacre]

rather than let it sputter out into a 'reject by default'.

That's not how our review process works with regard to brand fit: "Teams are innocent of brand violation until proven guilty." If it sputtered out, it would do so into an 'approve by default'.

I do agree that this review has been open long enough.

[G]iven the examples I gave above from FSF campaigns which make it clear it is 'struggling to impose it's will' on the world of proprietary software, would you reject the FSF if they applied?

How about the EFF, based on the combative language at https://act.eff.org and https://act.eff.org/action that makes it obvious it is 'struggling to impose it's will' on the surveilance state?

We're not reviewing FSF or EFF here. Even if we were or had already, it wouldn't help, because Riseup's rhetoric and brand identity are pretty clearly more strident than FSF or EFF's. FSF and EFF both accept the legitimacy of capital. Riseup does not. Riseup sets the revolutionary plow deeper, as it were, or perhaps differently, than either FSF or EFF. Therefore, even if we were to agree to accept FSF and EFF, we'd still be left with the question of whether to accept or reject Riseup.

In my view, Riseup's revolutionary rhetoric and attendant brand identity clash too strongly with Gratipay's brand identity, particularly our values of collaboration, sweet idealism, and unabashed optimism. Therefore, I am rejecting Riseup's application to be a Gratipay Team.

[webmaven]

:disappointed:

[wrought]

Hi, I'd like to collaboratively, idealistically, and optimistically suggest that this issue be re-opened and Riseup.net be reinstated on gratipay effective immediately.

Did you know Micah Lee helped Laura Poitras to communicate with Edward Snowden by using a riseup.net email account? https://theintercept.com/2014/10/28/smuggling-snowden-secrets/

I have collaborated with hundreds of people (seriously) who have either used riseup services for years or are first-time users as of this past week! Using riseup services has directly benefited these users (and many more), enabling them to learn about digital technologies and gain the ability to better control their communications to try to protect their privacy and security, in the course of grassroots community-oriented social work for public benefit.

It is incredibly sad to see that there was not enough input on this discussion from the many people whose lives have been touched, and improved, by way of riseup.net and its community of developers. I have to say, finding this issue at all was pretty much an accident and took me a while to find a link to it on the gratipay website. Further, is this really the best way to evaluate each and every group that creates a user account on gratipay? Just because a policy was written one way one time for some reason, it doesn't mean it will stay relevant forever...

If for you the question of "brand identity" here between Gratipay and Riseup turns out that Riseup.net is still not a good fit, after everything that I've already said -- I ask you to please consider what side of history you would prefer to be on.

In your old age, when you look back and you think about the choices you've made, wouldn't you like to say, "I stood with the people who supported tools that could be used by the likes of Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden"? Or "I stood with the people who supported an open, free, secure, stable, and egalitarian vision for the use of computers, the internet, and all technology--that put people above profits."? Or "I did not let my quick judgment cloud the bigger picture, and I changed my heart to become a better person, rather than digging my heels in and closing my ears to others."?

Please hear that to me, this is truly the lesson to be learned from "the pain of the previous experience" of controversy. Pride and zeal are not everything in life. I too continuously learn this lesson, the hard way, and many times over. Acting out of fear and resentment are not the only option, and I really really hope that this is not the course for gratipay and its participants. To turn away the likes of riseup.net is to continue the legacy of the previous controversy (not break from it), and for me, it potentially sinks the final nails in the coffin.

Even if you don't reinstate Riseup.Net, I know that I'll be able to look back and say "I said something. I didn't just ignore it when groups like riseup.net needed support"--and they do, they really do need the kind of grassroots financial support enabled by sites like gratipay.

Indeed, even if you do not reinstate Riseup.Net, I can choose to be on the people's side of history by helping Gratipay users like Riseup to abandon their accounts to sign up for other sites -- like Patreon -- where they will be able to do pretty much the same thing but without the risk of losing their account as has occurred here.

The choice is in your hands, @whit537.

[techtonik]

In your old age, when you look back and you think about the choices you've made, wouldn't you like to say, "I stood with the people who supported tools that could be used by the likes of Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden"?

I once overheard a Tor tutorial on the street - a drug dealer was instructing his new client over the phone. And I've heard how a drug junkie from the neighborhood was killing his wife out of my door, and it nothing has to do with libertarian values. How about this controversy?

You say, riseup.net is libertarian, so you probably support 4chan, but 4chan is already banned.from here, because of social justice warfare. It is sad to see that people who are all about diversity are doing everything to erase those with different views and opinion, and because of those people enabling riseup.net may again get us tons of negative labels. Until there is some better social tech to deal with them, just don't feed the trolls or haters. And when you say I can choose to be on the people's side of history by helping Gratipay users like Riseup to abandon their accounts to sign up for other sites -- like Patreon -- where they will be able to do pretty much the same thing but without the risk of losing their account as has occurred here - it is an act of social justice activism hate - the thing that killed Gratipay 1.0, because different activists can not openly coexist together.

Transparency and openness vs secrecy and privacy is an endless debate. You say that you helped Snowden, but I would say it was a one time trick. FAQ says may even decide to cooperate with law enforcement and given that you're based in Seattle I read as we can not deny law enforcement orders from US to give up our clients https://help.riseup.net/ca/about-us/policy/government-faq#what-about-child-porn-drugs-corruption-etc-would-you-fight-law-enforcement-requests-for-users-doing-these-things

I am not saying that I am against riseup.net, as I am not saying that I am against 4chan or for it. Is it like if Gratipay accepts riseup.net or 4chan, it is automatically viewed by SJWs as a case of support, if declines - a case of being against. There is no such thing as being neutral - you can not just skip things like in StackOverflow review queue - that's that boolean world of social justice.

[wrought]

I once overheard a Tor tutorial on the street - a drug dealer was instructing his new client over the phone. And I've heard how a drug junkie from the neighborhood was killing his wife out of my door, and it nothing has to do with libertarian values. How about this controversy?

I have no opinion about this situation, to me it is a red herring. The facts I outlined above are:

• Important, positive, world-changing actions and actors have been supported by riseup.net
• Myself and many people I have met and collaborate with utilize and benefit from riseup.net

You say, riseup.net is libertarian, so you probably support 4chan, but 4chan is already banned.from here, because of social justice warfare.

I did not say anything about libertarianism, nor 4chan. I have no opinion about either of these topics and while they are red herrings again, on top of it this is also a strawman argument.

It is sad to see that people who are all about diversity are doing everything to erase those with different views and opinion, and because of those people enabling riseup.net may again get us tons of negative labels.

I have no interest in giving labels, this is simply inaccurate. I also articulated that I am willing to accept whatever decision is made, I have choices for how to act for any outcome, and I know it is not my choice as to whether or not riseup.net's account is reinstated.

Until there is some better social tech to deal with them, just don't feed the trolls or haters.

Indeed feeding trolls or haters is not necessary.

And when you say I can choose to be on the people's side of history by helping Gratipay users like Riseup to abandon their accounts to sign up for other sites -- like Patreon -- where they will be able to do pretty much the same thing but without the risk of losing their account as has occurred here -

I did not suggest anyone else needs to or should make that choice. It's something that I myself can do, it is within my own capacity to choose to act in this way or not. I do not assume that others must do the same. I believe others should follow their hearts.

it is an act of social justice activism hate - the thing that killed Gratipay 1.0, because different activists can not openly coexist together.

This is a very sad sentiment to me. As I said before, I believe that disabling riseup.net's account unfortunately continues the legacy of "the thing that killed Gratipay 1.0". Sincerely, there's always an opportunity to choose to do things differently, to reflect, to grow, to change. I hope this happens for everyone in the gratipay community in their own way.

Transparency and openness vs secrecy and privacy is an endless debate.

Possibly, and to me I have no interest in such a debate. Please, it is up to you to decide for yourself what you think is important.

You say that you helped Snowden, but I would say it was a one time trick. FAQ says may even decide to cooperate with law enforcement and given that you're based in Seattle I read as we can not deny law enforcement orders from US to give up our clients https://help.riseup.net/ca/about-us/policy/government-faq#what-about-child-porn-drugs-corruption-etc-would-you-fight-law-enforcement-requests-for-users-doing-these-things

I do not work for riseup.net. Let me be absolutely clear, I am simply a user of both riseup.net and gratipay. I was surprised to see this situation and have chosen to participate, as the policies and other participants in this project have requested, by posting on this thread.

As for the law enforcement orders, I'll let folks do their own research about how this works and why it may be a bit more complicated than it seems at the surface level. I encourage you to engage on this topic, it will likely be educational.

I am not saying that I am against riseup.net, as I am not saying that I am against 4chan or for it. Is it like if Gratipay accepts riseup.net or 4chan, it is automatically viewed by SJWs as a case of support, if declines - a case of being against. There is no such thing as being neutral - you can not just skip things like in StackOverflow review queue - that's that boolean world of social justice.

It has been difficult to get through the repeated ad hominem attacks of "SJW" and so forth. It's sad really that this conversation had to devolve so quickly, when I came with a genuine appeal, following the process and procedures as requested.

As for the question of "neutrality" or not, I don't think debating the generalization is very helpful. I read the discussion above, and I disagreed with the reasoning given for the decision to close riseup.net's account. The process does not preclude reversing decisions, so I posted a response, in the location requested for such discussion.

Personally, I believe there is indeed an option for gratipay to act something like "neutral" -- which is to allow users who do not explicitly violate terms of service and that pose no immediate risk to continue their use of the service as they choose. Even if the gratipay community reserves the right to deny an account based on brand identity, values, or whatever criteria it chooses, that doesn't mean it has to be exercised at any particular frequency.

To me, riseup.net is a worthy user toward whom the gratipay community can happily and peacefully remain neutral, while allowing riseup.net to use the gratipay service. As far as I can tell, there are no consequences to riseup.net having its account reinstated.

If ya'll have a change of heart, I hope you do. I also accept that you might not be able to do that, which would be sad and unfortunate for gratipay's future, in my humble opinion.

[elijh]

I read through your comment in email when you first posted it, and, revisiting it now, I notice that you've softened "being anti-capitalist is the only ethical position that takes human life seriously" to "anti-capitalism distinguishes itself by actually taking human life seriously." An interesting edit, which deepens the conversation here!

I wanted to clarify that I was speaking of ethical positions with respect to economics. To the extent that a system of ethics has any position on how society treats the most downtrodden, as most do, opposition to the gross inequality intrinsic capitalism is the only position compatible with a reverence for human life because of the many direct and indirect ways that this easily preventable inequality leads to many millions of additional human deaths per year.

[elijh]

That said, I'm still pretty strongly inclined to characterize Riseup as engaged in "an interactive social process in which two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills are struggling to impose themselves on the other." Would you say that's a fair characterization of Riseup's anti-capitalism?

What human activity could possibly be so bland, so vanilla, so common sense and universally accepted that it could pass this test? How about milk? Oh wait, no there is a ton debate around milk, how it is produced, subsidized, if we should drink it, etc. How about the all American pass time of gardening? No, I have seen community garden debates get a heated as any.

The reality is that human society is cantankerous and messy, and we wouldn't have it any other way. Imagine if the anti-slavery movement or the struggle for women's right to vote needed to be submitted to this kind of standard. I mean, damn, dialetic is considered by many to be the cornerstone of all western civilization and this standard against "irreconcilable wills" would render a productive dialetic impossible.

You could also say that the debate around global warming could be characterized as "irreconcilable wills are struggling to impose themselves on the other", except that one side has all the fucking science and the other side is composed science-deniers. It is absolutely reasonable to look at particular aspects of the science of climate change and to cast doubt on that particular piece, but it is batshit crazy to look at the entire body of work and conclude there is no cause for a change in human behavior.

Debate and conflict are healthy, debate and conflict are the lifeblood of democracy, debate and conflict are the only thing that keep us from falling into a morass of everything bland and banal. Who decides what is contentious and what is not? The power to frame what counts as a debate and what does not is a central way that those invested in the status quo insulate themselves from the threat of change.

[elijh]

For what it is worth, I think there are many good reasons to reject 4chan, not on the grounds of "debate bad" but on the grounds that 4chan has become, over time, a platform that directly contributes to the harassment and stalking of women.

I don't believe in absolute free speech or in moral relativism: causing real harm to people, especially people who are vulnerable or historically have had less voice in society, is immoral. Period.

[chadwhitacre]

First thing's first: Thank you for speaking up, @wrought. You're right that Riseup does provide a legitimate service that benefits many people. Moreover, your voice and perspective are welcome here, because community input is not only appropriate but vital to our Team review process. Please reticket any specific problems with or suggestions for improving our process that you'd like to discuss further.

Secondly, 4chan can barely even be called a red herring—maybe a green or purple herring?—because we have no history with 4chan. @techtonik: You probably meant 8chan. ;-)

Lastly, @elijh: I hear you pretty clearly answering in the affirmative.

[elijh]

Lastly, @elijh: I hear you pretty clearly answering in the affirmative.

No. I am saying that the standard is farcical. Its key feature, that it has no coherent meaning whatsoever, is its main feature, allowing one to capriciously accept or reject a project under the slightest pretense.

[chadwhitacre]

@elijh I'm not sure where the conversation goes from here. You're right that debate and conflict are healthy (and I'm happy to have your voice on this thread), but, since you find Gratipay's position to be farcical and meaningless, I see little hope of convergence. Indeed, the possibility and desirability of convergence seem to be crucial questions at issue. Can we even agree to disagree? We may just have to disagree. :-)

[wrought]

since you find Gratipay's position to be farcical and meaningless, I see little hope of convergence.

@whit537 this seems to be innaccurate, @elijh is talking about the Team policy, not Gratipay's position in general:

The power to frame what counts as a debate and what does not is a central way that those invested in the status quo insulate themselves from the threat of change.

The Team policy frames how and why an account can be disabled -- such as in the case of Riseup.net here.

To make it clear how this policy is indeed a problem, and how there are many obvious and simple alternatives, look at https://github.com/gratipay/inside.gratipay.com/issues/495

Finally, @whit537, while you acknowledged my comments and contributions (glossing over the harassment from @techtonik) I do not believe any of the content of my comments have been addressed.

Will you reinstate riseup.net or not?

[chadwhitacre]

I do not believe any of the content of my comments have been addressed. Why won't my actual comments 1 & 2 be directly addressed by any Gratipay members? (https://github.com/gratipay/inside.gratipay.com/issues/495#issuecomment-181571552)

@wrought I'm basically trying to say "no" respectfully. I'm trying to find a balance between engaging you in a huge long debate that is basically just leading you on, and ignoring you. Apparently I've erred on the side of too little engagement and not being direct enough, sooooo ...

Will you reinstate riseup.net or not?

No, I will not. The sort of behavior I'm seeing from @elijh is precisely the sort of behavior I am eager to keep out of the Gratipay community. Hot-headed activism does not belong here.

(glossing over the harassment from @techtonik)

Fair enough, and I'm sorry. Hot-headed reactions to provocation also don't belong on Gratipay. @techtonik: Your use of the word "hate" was especially out of bounds. Please watch your language in the future.

Did you know Micah Lee helped Laura Poitras to communicate with Edward Snowden by using a riseup.net email account?

No, but it doesn't surprise me.

In your old age, when you look back and you think about the choices you've made, wouldn't you like to say, "I stood with the people who supported tools that could be used by the likes of Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden"?

Meh. Not what gets me up in the morning.

Or "I stood with the people who supported an open, free, secure, stable, and egalitarian vision for the use of computers, the internet, and all technology--that put people above profits."?

Mmmmm ...... still not how I would put it.

Or "I did not let my quick judgment cloud the bigger picture, and I changed my heart to become a better person, rather than digging my heels in and closing my ears to others."?

Closer ... :-)

Using riseup services has directly benefited these users (and many more), enabling them to learn about digital technologies and gain the ability to better control their communications to try to protect their privacy and security, in the course of grassroots community-oriented social work for public benefit.

Awesome! How about Riseup changes its identity to focus on that and not on "allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression"? Give me joy and exuberance and life and the good for its own sake! Lose the war framing and the demonizing! Then I'd love to see Riseup on Gratipay! :dancer:

'Round here, we want to live in Sandman's sweet spot. We want to be a willfully naïve, sweetly idealistic, unabashedly optimistic haven of rest. We don't mind a healthy debate, and we try to take external criticism on board, but at the end of the day, if the two options are "cantankerous and messy" or "so bland, so vanilla," then ... yay, vanilla! :dancer:

Personally, I believe there is indeed an option for gratipay to act something like "neutral"

You should check out Liberapay, a recently launched Gratipay fork that has neutrality as a core principle.

Sincerely, there's always an opportunity to choose to do things differently, to reflect, to grow, to change. I hope this happens for everyone in the gratipay community in their own way.

:+1: I appreciate your approach, @wrought. Your human touch shines through. :)

[chadwhitacre]

Bolded so it gets its own comment ...

To turn away the likes of riseup.net is to continue the legacy of the previous controversy

I have to admit that I'm not actually sure what to make of this. What do you see as the legacy of the previous controversy (and which controversy? we've had several :) and how does turning away riseup.net continue it?

[chadwhitacre]

What do you see as the legacy of the previous controversy (and which controversy? we've had several :) and how does turning away riseup.net continue it?

Maybe we should pick this up over on https://github.com/gratipay/inside.gratipay.com/issues/495 as well?