Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Codidact's policy regarding posts, user names and profiles with political content

Parent

Codidact's policy regarding posts, user names and profiles with political content

+14
−0

Does Codidact have any policy against using political content in posts, user names or user profiles?

I'm not talking about questions about political content, which should obviously be fine given that it's on-topic at the site where it's posted.

But I'm rather referring to the promotional kind, such as speaking for or against a certain candidate or party, or naming your user after a well-known politician, or posting political propaganda in your user profile.

This has been something of a hot potato Someplace Else, so it will eventually pop up here too. Some examples:

  • There was an example of the CEO posting a long blong-like post on SO.meta propagating against Donald Trump.
  • There are examples of users (and spammers) using their profile to express various political views, including criticism against dictatorships (possibly leading to a network ban of the site in that country).
  • There is always the case where someone decides to pick a tasteless user name from some well-known dictator, past or present.

The current Code of Conduct and "be nice" doesn't seem very helpful here. Expressing political opinions isn't necessarily rude. Is there a policy for what user names or user profiles can contain and does it cover situations like these?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

SE relevant example (2 comments)
Post
+8
−0

Caveat: This is from my personal perspective and should not be taken as the official Codidact stance on this.


Your profile is your personal space: You get to decorate it how you like, more or less. If you want to put up posters of your favorite band, or your preferred political candidate... that reflects on you, for the most part, and not anyone else.

There are some things, though, that we shouldn't be hosting here on Codidact at all, even in someone's personal profile.

These include outright bigotry, personal attacks against other people / groups of people, and inappropriate content (nudity etc.).

What does this mean when it comes to declaring your political views? IMO, "vote for Joe McSmiley" should be fine, but "Candidate Furhead Brainrot is a mule head" isn't - it's a personal attack against someone.

However... when something is too close to the line, or deemed by mods / staff to be liable to stir up extensive debate, I think there are sufficient grounds for removing it. Codidact isn't required to host everything on our instance; if someone wants to host their own version of our sites with whatever content they want, they're welcome to (provided, of course, they make it clear they're not affiliated with the Codidact Foundation).
As a general rule, though, you should be allowed to put any non-offensive statement you want in your own profile.


Usernames and avatars are held to a slightly higher standard than profiles, since they show up everywhere you post. I'd advise against too much politics in those, since they're liable to simply cause unrelated discussion on random posts - and, of course, anything that crosses the "offensive" line should be removed.


Anything that could be dangerous should be immediately removed. This could include some types of misinformation, such as about various drug usage; this could be seen as political, but I think it's a moral responsibility to remove any content that could lead to serious harm or death. It's not about politics at that point.


I find it unlikely that anyone will ever be making political statements on behalf of Codidact the site or the Codidact Foundation. (We'd probably need entirely unanimous support from the entire Board of Directors before doing such a thing, and that's extremely unlikely to happen.) I don't think that's something we need to be concerned about at the moment.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Dangerously close to censorship. (5 comments)
Dangerously close to censorship.
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

The problem with a rule that content should not be "offensive" is that there is a wide range of what people consider offensive. The easier path is to have a thick skin and realize that what people say in their profile reflects on them, not the site. Saying something insulting about a public figure isn't something we should get involved in. I agree about disallowing pornography. At least there is a reasonably object definition of that.

whybecause‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

I'm not sure censorship is always bad. Government censorship is one thing, but Codidact isn't anyone's government.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

When you give yourself the permission to delete what you don't like, then it squashes the free exchange of ideas. It also too easily devolves into using censorship to delete dissenting opinions because you find them inconvenient.

It's best to only delete or disallow speech or writing when it reaches a really horrendous level, preferably with a clear and objective description of what is over the line. Put another way, if you can just ignore it and get on with your life, then do so. If something isn't causing real demonstrable harm, let it be. Censorship is the kind of power humans are very bad at wielding well and not causing an irreversible slide down the proverbial slippery slope.

whybecause‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

The point of Codidact isn't wide-ranging free exchange--it's to ask technical and factual questions and get expert answers. I think we lose nothing on this particular site by "squashing" the kinds of free exchange that undermine the mission of the site. It doesn't squash it in the world, you still have the freedom to say anything you want. Not allowing offensive speech on this site just means this site has no obligation to host every opinion, and we have the freedom to protect the mission of the site from dilution and degradation. We could slide as far down the slippery slope as possible, and I don't think there is harm in it. So long as asking technical and fact-based questions, and posting technical answers, have a hardline protection.

mbomb007‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

The thing is, some people are easily offended; others aren't. Just because someone finds something offensive doesn't mean it objectively is wrong or harmful. When it's a username or photo, and everyone has to look at it, it should be changed. But nobody is forcing you to look at someone's profile.