Post #1777604

2026-03-27 07:52 UTC

@chandlerc First off, I think you're essentially right that the standard should be different. Not only because the consequences are different, but because the capacity to investigate and adjudicate a claim is diffrent too (the state has special organs for this). That said, I'd push back on two aspects. First, the notion that losing employment is trivial or unimportant. There's good research on how harmful this is, and in general, many jurisdictions have tenure of employment as a right, requiring proper grounds for dismissal. I think any dilution of this stance is dangerous, because if you can dismiss someone without sufficient cause in one instance, you can do so for less justifiable reasons. Second, I think it's important to consider that this happens in the context of communities, where people can do irrational and adversarial things. Norms can be instrumentalised by bad actors if there aren't sufficient safeguards. (I could provide examples, not in free software, but regarding similar contexts.)

Replies (1)

@chandlerc@hachyderm.io 2026-03-27 08:25

@modulux First, you can't "push back" on the notion that losing employment is trivial or unimportant. From my post: "That's not to say that either of these is an inconsequential event -- they can be very consequential." -- pretty freaking clear that I'm not calling this trivial or unimportant. Personally, I actually disagree about grounds for dismissal, but very explicitly only in a context with credible UBI. The absence of which I agree complicates the matter. But I don't think there is a "right" to a career that includes inherently high-trust interactions with other humans. That kind of career is inherently a social contract rather than a fundamental right. But we don't have UBI in any interesting context, and so that makes everything horribly complicated. But _none_ of these positions are "trivial" or "unimportant", and I was very explicit about that in my post. To your second point, the existence of bad actors or the ability of bad actors to manipulate a system is _completely_ orthogonal and irrelevant to the point I'm making. It's also hilariously blown out of proportion -- every piece of actual evidence (as opposed to anecdote) clearly shows that bad-faith actions are a sharp minority of the already small fraction of _any_ kind of bad behavior.

Open ##1777605