Post B0wEpYRcYkulc49w4e by erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net
(DIR) More posts by erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net
(DIR) Post #B0wEpYRcYkulc49w4e by erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net
2025-12-05T12:23:33.239157Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
To paraphrase a post I just readI have learned that (a named member of a community safety team) is saying that evidence against me exists, but they cannot share it without endangering othersThis means (said team) is effectively judging me based upon secret evidence against without opportunity for due process or defenceThis isn’t how a community safety team should actActually, no, this is exactly how a community safety team must conduct its’ business.As a relatively extreme example: let’s say I’m a member of such a team, and I become aware that a project member has nonconsentually distributed nude photos of their former partner. The evidence there is the offence; clearly I cannot just publically republish those photos. Lets say you approach me with logs of a 1:1 conversation you had with a person. If I redistribute those, either to the accused or to the public, I am fundamentally revealing to the accused that you provided those logs; this fundamentally exposes you to harm and abuse from the accused person. Depending upon jurisdiction, publication of such accusations can also be a legal violation of the accused’s right to privacy under data protection law, or considered libelious or slanderous, or at least sufficient grounds for one to attempt such a lawsuit. This is not a risk that you can generally take or that most people would be willing to take. This is why, in general, safety and moderation teams will not comment on expulsions or bans except in the most general terms unless forced otherwiseYes, you have to trust the safety team’s assesment as to whether the provided information and/or evidence is fake, misleadingly quoted or genuine. Yes, you have to trust their decision. Yes, they might get it wrong. Yes, this is imperfect. A community safety team is not a court. They do not have the evidentiary standards of a court. They also do not have the powers of a court to compel release of evidence, nor to restrain from redistributing confidential evidence or to reasonably punish them for such mishandling. The court process is not the be all and end all of conflict resolution; there is a large gap between “proven to a court’s satisfaction to convict” and “disproven”, and there is also a large gap between “unreasonable behaviour within a community” and “unreasonable behaviour punishable by law”Now, I would say that in general a community safety team should not comment at all on their actions, but when you repeatedly publically name members of said safety team to your thousands of followers, with the inevitable consequential result being discreditation at best and in all likely circumstances harassment, you have to wonder whether you are actually a safe and responsible person to have as a part of a community.
(DIR) Post #B0wGRtHncST3D6PQxM by whitequark@mastodon.social
2025-12-05T12:34:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@erincandescent I don't think I would want to have you on a safety team, given how much you're describing you would mishandle this particular case.
(DIR) Post #B0wGRuJxltnCQ6Qfy4 by whitequark@mastodon.social
2025-12-05T12:36:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@erincandescent you're talking about a case with excellent documentation of persistent stalking and harassment, for years, and you hang it all on "Well actually it might be private and such and such". that makes you look untrustworthy and biased _at best_.
(DIR) Post #B0wGRv1v8SxEcQzmU4 by whitequark@mastodon.social
2025-12-05T12:37:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@erincandescent You then follow it up by both-sidesing, which makes me wonder if you're friends with said abuser and want to cover for them.
(DIR) Post #B0wGRvzpXisPcF1crg by erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net
2025-12-05T12:46:28.925927Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@whitequark Do you have access to any of the confidential information here, or are you going purely based upon what is public?That Person A is terrible does not mean that Person B is not terrible. That logs exist does not mean that information does not exist outside of the logs. I have no ongoing association with either party in the concrete case. I have knowledge ofsome nonpublic information not from either party that I consider materially relevant but i would not consider sufficient to base a decision upon.
(DIR) Post #B0wGRwyRuLMkeFO2Lo by erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net
2025-12-05T12:48:05.193878Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@whitequark My agenda as much as it exists is to remind people that the court of public opinion is, in practice, a lynch mob.
(DIR) Post #B0wGRzg7qvUX2Hpwhs by whitequark@mastodon.social
2025-12-05T12:43:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@erincandescent what, exactly, is your agenda here? you've been on this topic for a while, so I don't really believe that the purpose of making posts that pretend to be neutral and not about a specific case while _very obviously_ being about a specific well known case is to discuss moderation in the abstract.