Post #3004461

2025-09-08 12:50 UTC

Update 2: Unofficial response from queer ubuntu member, diversity statement, post is reverted, but... The first response is a queer Ubuntu member saying that it was a mistake and shouldn't've happened. As I've argued in my previous posts, I think that the moderator responses are acting on their underlying values as opposed to it being a simple mistake. If those values conflict with the values of Ubuntu, then that is a problem that is a bit more difficult to solve than with a talking to. If I were in the position of the moderators I'd be either reflecting on my values; or stepping down, and maybe looking to moderate a space that more closely aligns with my values such as Hyprland. As a moderator myself I've been on the verge of stepping down for much much less. Overall though I do think they are taking the right attitude. https://fosstodon.org/@AKernelPanic/115166376744790018 Another response has told me that apparently there is a diversity policy. I was gonna make a whole stink about how it's hard to find, and how it's arguably a suggestion as opposed to the actual CoC (which it's not included in). Then I actually read it and it includes "Political beliefs" as a protected class. This means that the positions of the moderators are actually totally in line with the diversity policy. Putting queer people and people who want queer people gone into the same category IS a component of far-right ideology, as I covered in post 2. Not having discrimination based on political beliefs necessitates having discrimination based on other protected classes. https://masto.pt/@DiogoConstantino/115168524107698808 https://web.archive.org/web/20250908125245/https://ubuntu.com/community/docs/ethos/diversity Lastly the post got reverted. This is largely symbolic, as I doubt lukas will actually want to participate in the community after all that. I woulda been a lot happier about writing this down if I didn't just read their diversity statement that implies the moderators' actions were, in fact, in line with the values of of Canonical and Ubuntu.

Replies (4)

@gimmechocolate@bark.lgbt 2025-09-08 16:44

Final update (hopefully): The council makes a statement, changes the moderation guidelines. First I'll cover the code of conduct changes, which I suggest you give a read yourself: https://web.archive.org/web/20250908155110/https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/code-of-conduct-enforcement-process/59844 All in all this a very good change. I don't think I could've written better rules myself. I've said that I don't think marginalized groups and bigots can coexist when treated as two equal sides. I do, however, think that we can coexist in a world where they work along side us, as long as they are told to shut the fuck up when they start being harmful, divisive, and/or assholes. Studies show that this dynamic when we all interact, just as normal people, without someone being yelled at for being themselves, is the best way to make a more tolerant world. I feel that these rules perfectly accomplish that. Of course that all assumes they are enforced fairly, and by people who aren't biased against the vales those rules represent, which brings me to the response itself: https://web.archive.org/web/20250908151805/https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/on-discourse-rules-about-politics/66986 If you give the benefit of the doubt, it casts a new light on why the initial action was taken: due to generational gap, the mod saw it as a sexualized slur. Unfortunately that was a very small part of the criticisms; and the fact that two other mods chimed in, with responses that I've argued were both clearly not a mistake, and extremely ideologically charged; means that this response wasn't as perfect as the rule changes. I don't think that necessarily makes it bad mind you, but it does mean that the team will have it's work cut out for them making sure the people enforcing their rules aren't biased against said rules. Lets all remember what happened with Hyprland after the drama: they added rules about discrimination, but the leader of the project still agreed that it's ok to ban people for having pronouns in username. Even a really good set of rules are still no better than the people enforcing them.

Open ##3004462
@colinstu@birdbutt.com 2025-09-08 13:04

@gimmechocolate@bark.lgbt bigotry is a political belief that should be protected? They can think that all they want but they can also go fuck themselves too. Wow. Canonical needs to figure out the Paradox of Tolerance, pronto.

Open ##3004504
@lukas@bark.lgbt 2025-09-08 13:13

@gimmechocolate@bark.lgbt https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/lukas-here-hello-to-all/66658/15?u=lukas

Open ##3004506
@curiousbear@tech.lgbt 2025-09-08 15:54

@gimmechocolate@bark.lgbt You are probably far ahead on this, but I was wondering. They say this shouldn’t have happened and that there is a diversity policy. But, what are they actually going to do to prevent this from happening again in the future *and* create an inclusive environment that welcomes queer people (not merely just tolerate them saying they exist)? I am a longtime Ubuntu user, so am finding this really disturbing.

Open ##3004507