Ok. I live in Singapore. Here is a statement from the Singapore Police Force directly telling foreigners not to advocate for political causes or risk being deported: https://www.facebook.com/singaporepoliceforce/posts/10157358158324408 Is that concrete enough? That is a public post from an official government account from 2018 that is quite clear.
I would not want any banners that could appear to be political to appear on my screen while giving a public talk. I do not want any such banners anywhere near any documentation I might send to a colleague or client. I want 0 risk of these things happening. I do not think it is fair to equate this to orcs and wizards. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:55 PM Axel Wagner <axel.wagner...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:56 AM Jon Reiter <jonrei...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's not difficult to imagine banners like "free (some geographic place)" >> or "remember (someone or some date)" causing severe problems. >> > > It's also not difficult to imagine Orcs and wizarding schools and > intergalactic star flight. Doesn't make any of them real. > Are you aware of the optics of responding to a question about real > precedence with a different imagined problem? > > >> This banner differs only in degree of risk. >> > > Quantitative differences easily become qualitative ones. Being pricked by > a needle or getting knifed in the stomach only differ by degree of > stabbing. But if I told you that my doctor is trying to kill me, you'd > rightly point out that that's an imagined problem. > > >> It increases the risk of a problem by some non-0 amount. >> > > Assuming that was true, this non-0 amount would still needed to be weighed > against the benefits and in this case, the very real plight of people of > color across the world. Who are in very, painfully real danger to their > lives. > To make that tradeoff, at the very least, we'd need to know the actual > amount. But so far, the amount appears to be an actual zero. > > This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiments. It's about >> not wanting to think about it when consulting technical documentation. >> > > It is, for some people. In fact, it seems to me the only "concern" that > was brought up by multiple people. Even if it might not be what this is > about for you, you should at least still be aware that you are supporting > that as well. > > As an aside it is not nice to be told my concerns are trivial. I'm >> concerned. I'm not the only person on this list that has expressed >> concerns. That should be enough for the issue to be taken seriously >> (regardless of outcome). >> > > I disagree with this logic. There are millions of anti-vaxxers or > flat-earthers. Doesn't mean their claims and concerns have any merit. > > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 17:23 Axel Wagner <axel.wagner...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Can you be more specific about how this is a real issue? Like, do you >>> have precedent, where a banner-ad was the reason someone who linked to a >>> page for unrelated reasons was prosecuted? Would be interesting to have >>> some real cases so we get a clear picture of the threat here. >>> >>> Because to be clear, the reason I am trivializing this, is because I >>> believe it to be trivial. I can make up all kinds of laws and speculate >>> around how what you may say is violating them. NBut just because it's laws >>> I make wild claims about doesn't actually make the problems I talk about >>> real. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jon Reiter <jonrei...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm sorry, I think this trivializes real concerns that impact a >>>> significant number of people. It is not hard to imagine a setting in many >>>> major cities around a world where a banner like this appearing during a >>>> presentation or training session could cause problems. I am not the source >>>> or enforcer of such rules -- but I am responsible for ensuring I comply >>>> with them. >>>> >>>> I don't know where you live or work or travel but is in insensitive to >>>> dismiss this as a non-issue for everyone that uses go. To the extent it is >>>> an issue it's a local legal issue. In that way the go code of conduct >>>> isn't the primary concern. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:48 PM Axel Wagner < >>>> axel.wagner...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I share link to golang.org all the time and I'd be willing to serve >>>>> as a testcase for this. Feel free to report my alleged crimes to the >>>>> police. >>>>> Claiming that simply sharing a link to the Go page is "advocating for >>>>> a foreign political cause" is clearly a bad-faith argument, so if you live >>>>> in the kind of legal system where you aren't laughed out of the room by >>>>> any >>>>> judge you try to make it to, I feel that the content of the Go project >>>>> page >>>>> is the least of your worries. >>>>> >>>>> Also telling that you seem to explicitly call out the Go code of >>>>> conduct as not "impacting the entire community"? Surely I misunderstood >>>>> that. Just pointing that out to make clear that "it impacts the entire >>>>> community" is pretty much par for the course for things the Go team does. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:29 AM Jon Reiter <jonrei...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Except now sharing links to golang.org, or showing those web pages >>>>>> at events, could be argued as advocating for a foreign political cause. >>>>>> And that's illegal in much of the world. Per google, google operates in >>>>>> 219 countries. This could force community members to argue in any of at >>>>>> least 219 legal systems this is apolitical under local law. Not the >>>>>> golang >>>>>> code of conduct, local law. That is a decision that impacts the entire >>>>>> community. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:23 AM 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts < >>>>>> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In the context of a sufficiently large collection of people all >>>>>>> actions >>>>>>> are political to some degree, *including inaction and non-comment*. >>>>>>> Where the boundary is for the degree on what constitutes a political >>>>>>> action and what doesn't varies between people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 2020-06-14 at 16:44 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >>>>>>> > Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com>: >>>>>>> > > This is not a simple political issue, it is a personal human >>>>>>> issue. >>>>>>> > > It >>>>>>> > > is a social issue. It is a justice issue. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > It is the injection of politics into a list where politics does not >>>>>>> > belong. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Kindly perform your virtue signalling elsewhere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/d396661a24dd31c0f97842cd69dd939437bf2e4c.camel%40kortschak.io >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CABZtUk6QNmqm0JyG8N7YmYE98V_THupKZUuar%3Df7jx_WwJEWmg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CABZtUk6QNmqm0JyG8N7YmYE98V_THupKZUuar%3Df7jx_WwJEWmg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CABZtUk5M_az9jddRpJN9MfhGJuqD5kzpo_p4X1zMcwF2k0LKSQ%40mail.gmail.com.
