[tor-talk] http://jacobappelbaum.net/

[notfriendly at riseup.net]

On 2016-06-05 11:03, carlo von lynX wrote:
> Woah, looks like some people took those JTRIG slides quite literally.
> 
> The problem with (in)justice in open activist communities is
> that, even should the facts be clear, those facts affect
> private details of life of either contendants or third parties,
> which makes it inacceptable to disclose in public.
> 
> NGOs solve this by having some leadership figure that takes
> some measures in a benevolent dictator manner and if you don't
> like the resolution, you just find a different NGO to join.
> Some other groups simply do nothing which is also unsatisfac-
> tory, since once the strategically oriented people have noted
> that harming others will go unpunished, they will start doing
> it more frequently and the entire cohesion of the group is
> drowned in frustration and paranoia.
> 
> The only solution that I find more or less acceptable to this
> dilemma is how political parties do it. A previously elected
> court of arbitration is entitled to hear all sides of the
> dispute, including the intimate things they are not allowed
> to disclose, and as they conclude who was right and who may
> be to be sanctioned, the rest of the activists are supposed
> to shut up the gossip, stop the quick and easy judgements
> which are 50% likely to be wrong and trust the court.
> 
> Unfortunately even young political parties do not understand
> this and have a tendency to do the shitstorm dance, which is
> the fastest way to implosion of the political group. A good
> example is what happened to Julia Schramm who did everything
> right, yet 50% of pirate party members think she did something
> wrong.
> 
> And the best way to get rid of an important political activist
> is to attack them on whatever real or ficticious grounds. The
> doubt will persist. Some shit will always stick. A classic
> strategy for a political takeover of a group is two-headed:
> One is the leadership figure who works hard to get on top of
> the de-facto hierarchy while their right-hand wing-person has
> the job of throwing themselves at any potential opponent.
> Ironically the leader will then find ways to recover their
> wing-person, just think of the Kohl/Schäuble team, so it isn't
> even bad for person #2.
> 
> In the past six years I've seen some pigs fly and my conclusion
> is that for a solid activist group to survive threats of take-
> over or Zersetzung it takes a solid architecture of separation
> of powers and a solid discipline to trust the justice system
> rather than your own guaranteed-to-be-incomplete view of the
> situation.
> 
> I have no idea if my scenario has anything to do with the
> case at hand since I am disconnected from it, that's why
> I thought I may share some things learned from previous
> activism in a generic philosophical way.
> 
> If you want to solve this dispute in a fair and reasonable
> way for all, "elect" three unrelated people to be the jury,
> have all affected persons tell their story to them in
> person, Tox or PGP - then express a verdict and respect it.
> 
> Public KKK-style trial is certainly not the appropriate way.
> In fact it is quite disgusting.


Wow I just read the site. It makes me quite sad, the videos of his 
presentations never indicated he would do something like that. The site 
users place holders for many stories. That makes me somewhat concerned. 
The statement made by the tor project 
(https://blog.torproject.org/blog/statement) blog is even more 
concerning. I'm really surprised that something like this would happen. 
I've always trusted the statements he made. Now I'm not sure. I haven't 
seen any articles in the news yet.