# Community Moderation and Euro-centrism **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/community-moderation-and-euro-centrism/20367 **Category:** Meta **Tags:** discourse **Created:** 2024-08-27T10:35:42Z **Posts:** 84 ## Post 1 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-27T10:35:42Z Had some concerns regarding the moderation and application of code of conduct in the community, especially in discussions around news articles and tools. In the short time I have been here, I have seen some of the moderation having consistent bias in favor of members of the team/long time members, and against visitors, instead of it being based on the value of their argument. It is especially visible when it comes to discussion of news articles and tools. Some points below: 1. Team members often tread the lines of code of conduct, but responses to them in the same vein are often removed. 2. Discussion of tools are often leading into conjectures, but not enough proof is given. Sources are consistently asked for claims that are not well regarded by the group, while others are presented as facts. 3. News discussions often devolve into Euro-centric ideology and bashing of non-euro countries, ideas, and companies. Similar questions when raised against European and North American powers are either ignored or chalked up to conspiracy. It is quite disappointing to see that yet another forum falls into the same trap of r/privacy and other not-so-nice-or-credible forums. Wanted to start a discussion to see if this has just been my experience or not. Feel free to delete/lock this if this is off-topic or out of bounds, but that will make it impossible for me to continue here (not a great loss in any way :slight_smile: ) --- ## Post 2 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-27T11:09:07Z I would like to add one thing that I think is important. This is an aspect that did not immediately catch my eye when I first started to explore such spaces as forums. Topikstarter and all those who have recently joined I advise you to pay attention to the foundation, which shows the level of trust, demanding and evaluating the weight of words of these or those forums. This is first of all - the system of trust to forum members from [Discoure.org](http://Discoure.org) itself > **[Understanding Discourse Trust Levels](https://blog.discourse.org/2018/06/understanding-discourse-trust-levels/)** > > The user trust system is a fundamental cornerstone of Discourse. Trust levels are a way of… --- ## Post 3 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-27T11:09:39Z While it’s possible to perceive bias in moderation, it’s crucial to recognize that moderators aim to uphold the community’s code of conduct. Note though, that EVERYONE has a bias, whether they like it or not, best one can do is be mindful of it and try to act on it. If you see anyone overstepping the Code of conduct, do call them out on it, its what it is there for. Regarding tool discussions, whats written on the site is generally perceived as the truth, as it had to have been researched before it was added, the discussion from when it was added is in this case the source that is provided by default. If one wants to claim the site is wrong (and if that is the case, please do) then the burden of proving that it is wrong/should be changed is on the one making the claim. Regarding the third claim, I wouldn’t say that the site is focused on the European mindset specifically, but I can see you point with it being focused on western countries. While our team members are spread across the globe, we are mostly based out of western countries, and as such it is only logic for us to have more knowledge on this subject from a western mindset/point of view. If you have a tip or idea of how we can improve this, I am all ears :). --- ## Post 4 by @anon80779245 — 2024-08-27T12:06:24Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > News discussions often devolve into Euro-centric ideology and bashing of non-euro countries, ideas, and companies. Similar questions when raised against European and North American powers are either ignored or chalked up to conspiracy. I disagree with this. We often talk about the NSA surveillance or how EU wants to forbid encryption. That being said, it doesn’t rrmain the case that for the most part Western countries have more transparency and are more democratic. When a Russian, Chinese or Iranian company claims to have a private product, the difficulty is that in those countries, there are secret laws that force a company to spy for the government in total secrecy. To be very clear, the US government could force a company to hand over the data, but the user, but they cannot force them to implement back doors. I know it might seem unfair, but a company in a country with secretive and harsh laws needs to be assesed with a higher level of scrutiny, than a company in an open society. That being said, privacy guides do recommend non-Western tools. For example, Notesnook is Pakistani and Ente is Indian. But privacy guides might have some biases and this is why we are working on a list on privacy regulation for each country. So we can have a better idea of what country really respect the privacy, in theory - and also in practice. --- ## Post 5 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-27T12:22:02Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > Ente is Indian. Ente Technologies, Inc. is based in the [US](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/should-ente-auth-really-be-recommended-particularly-the-e2ee/20242) --- ## Post 6 by @anon80779245 — 2024-08-27T12:24:48Z > [@anon23293884](#): > > is based in the [US](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/should-ente-auth-really-be-recommended-particularly-the-e2ee/20242) It was based in India when it was recommended if I’m not mistaken. Didn’t know their current status. --- ## Post 7 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-27T13:21:34Z There is one incident with content moderation that I had. My password managers poll got hidden because the votes were public, which doesn’t make any sense at all. 1. There is a clear warning stating that the votes are **public** : ![IMG_20240827_161354](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/1/14be016c77cc34b029755b0125ef200adeae79bd.jpeg) 1. You shouldn’t expect any privacy on a **public** forum. If you want privacy, then create a pseudonymous or anonymous account and use that, nothing that you do on the forum will be tied to your real identity. 2. There are countless other polls that have public votes enabled. 3. Why is making polls public even an option if it can cause the poll to be hidden? --- ## Post 8 by @Rasta — 2024-08-27T13:46:50Z Yeah, I’m not sure why @dngray delisted it, someone was complaining about the option of a public poll existing and I thought we were explaining why it could exist, then it got unlisted in response to my explanation. --- ## Post 9 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-27T14:40:27Z I don’t know why it was hidden I have asked him in the team chat and ill come back to you on that. --- ## Post 10 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-27T15:11:15Z > [@What password manager are you using? (Poll)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/what-password-manager-are-you-using-poll/20245/49): > > I think it might and it might be public=false the problem is when I try to edit the post it says it must be done within 5 minutes of posting. Only real option now is to hide the whole thread. --- ## Post 11 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-27T16:53:10Z Yes, my understanding is also that it was based in India. The founders are in India AFAIK. And Notesnook is based in Pakistan. I don’t know if the company is in Pakistan, but the founders are from there and live there. --- ## Post 12 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-27T16:57:09Z Although I have yet to experience it here, as I’m also quite new, **I find that online forums in general, around any topic, including privacy, are quite American centric more than European centric.** What I mean by that is that I’ve seen many people on Reddit ask for help with something, and someone will reply with: > _you can buy X at Walmart._ They assume that OP is in the US, when OP has not stated their location. They should ask first. When I respond to people who haven’t sated their location, I say, if you’re in the US, you can use this. **People should specify when a tool is exclusive to a country or region.** Moreover, I think that the influencers in the privacy community should specify that a tool is exclusively available in the US when they recommend it. I’ve seen too many of them fail to state that. And if they don’t know, IMO, they should know. Of course, they’re allowed to make mistakes, I’m just saying they should keep that in mind. The perfect example is [privacy.com](http://privacy.com). Many influencers in the privacy community recommend it without stating that it’s only available in the US. On a loosely related topic, I’ve seen no one in the privacy community address the fact that [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) requires KYC, which includes ID, proof of address, and social security number. That is a huge compromise in privacy. **Although I’ve yet to see the European bias that you’re referring to OP, I agree that we should be mindful of it. Like one of the mods said, we all have biases. To pretend otherwise doesn’t help.** --- ## Post 13 by @dngray — 2024-08-27T16:57:45Z Yes, I hid it because people were complaining about the voters showing. It turns out you can’t modify a poll 5 minutes after it has started so there wasn’t much we could do to preserve privacy of those who voted and maybe thought it was anonymous. As for US/EU centric, we tend to **prefer** products in countries with obviously stronger privacy laws, but failing that, E2EE is really the only way to ensure privacy. It just happens to be that some EU countries have better legislation in regard to GDPR and enforcement of it. --- ## Post 14 by @yes — 2024-08-27T17:06:55Z > [@dngray](#): > > Yes, I hid it because people were complaining about the voters showing. If they’re worried about that, they can just undo their vote. Also, as Lukas shared, it clearly states that the votes are public. I don’t think it’s fair to hide the post. --- ## Post 15 by @dngray — 2024-08-27T17:19:30Z Well we can unhide it if you want, maybe we should have a vote on it :laughing: --- ## Post 16 by @jonah — 2024-08-27T17:43:01Z It’s hard to comment on any of these concerns without specific examples. I do think that non-experts making unfounded conjectures (and sometimes presenting them as facts) is potentially something we should be _more_ active in policing. --- ## Post 17 by @Rasta — 2024-08-27T17:43:07Z > [@PurpleDime](#): > > On a loosely related topic, I’ve seen no one in the privacy community address the fact that [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) requires KYC, which includes ID, proof of address, and social security number. That is a huge compromise in privacy. They have addressed that. It comes down to threat modelling and attack surface, you’re doing KYC with one company rather than giving your card out to every single website, contractor, etc you work with or use. If theres a data breach you just close that one singular card for that one site rather than have to get a new card from the bank and go through the hassle of updating payments everywhere. --- ## Post 18 by @jonah — 2024-08-27T17:44:47Z > [@PurpleDime](#): > > I’ve seen no one in the privacy community address the fact that [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) requires KYC > There are a number of services which provide “virtual debit cards” which you can use with online merchants without revealing your actual banking or billing information in most cases. It’s important to note that these financial services are **not** anonymous and are subject to “Know Your Customer” (KYC) laws and may require your ID or other identifying information. These services are primarily useful for protecting you from merchant data breaches, less sophisticated tracking or purchase correlation by marketing agencies, and online data theft; and **not** for making a purchase completely anonymously. > **[Financial Services - Privacy Guides](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/financial-services/#payment-masking-services)** > > These services can assist you in protecting your privacy from merchants and other trackers, which is one of the biggest challenges to privacy today. --- ## Post 19 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-27T22:47:36Z > [@jonah](#): > > It’s hard to comment on any of these concerns without specific examples. For someone who’s a prolific contributor here, you can’t be serious asking for “examples” when there are plenty? [In this reply](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/nextdns-logging-is-opt-out-not-opt-in-as-stated-on-pgs-dns-resolvers-recommendations-page/17206/60), Daniel says “let’s hope [NextDNS devs] reply to my emails” and tells me to shut up because he thinks I am dishonest “All of this can’t be verified” (for something that was literally on [our Twitter](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/nextdns-logging-is-opt-out-not-opt-in-as-stated-on-pgs-dns-resolvers-recommendations-page/17206/66)) and that I demand things, and that when I bring my expertise, I am just “arguing from authority”, and that [I _prove_ why a “single integer counter”](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/nextdns-logging-is-opt-out-not-opt-in-as-stated-on-pgs-dns-resolvers-recommendations-page/17206/69) wasn’t enough to prevent attacks and abuse across a world-wide network of DNS servers, because to Daniel, it was totally possible to do so (of course didn’t have to present any proofs). The scorn was unreal. > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > whats written on the site is generally perceived as the truth What kind of Orwellian logic is this when you yourself admit “EVERYONE has bias”? > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > as it had to have been researched before it was added Not everything is “researched”, is it? For instance, [the section on “Anonymous routing”](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/advanced/communication-network-types/#anonymous-routing) looks like it was put up haphazardly. How does one research and come to a strawman conclusion that `Just like other decentralized platforms, adding features is more complex for developers than on a centralized platform`? > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > the burden of proving that it is wrong/should be changed is on the one making the claim This is a high bar for contributors to clear (when it is demonstrable that the website itself doesn’t meet it). Instead the point should be to encourage more contributions. Though I understand bikeshedding is an inevitable outcome when that happens. Either way, communities like Wikipedia (which encourage contributions) have the right model for a knowledge resource. PrivacyGuides shouldn’t be run like a Journal, imo. > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > If you have a tip or idea of how we can improve this, I am all ears No tips from me, but I sincerely hope the team themselves are thinking about improving on this criteria, now that they’re aware of it. I’ve heard it from two other FOSS project leads in the privacy space that the bias against non-Western projects here is overt and overwhelming. --- ## Post 20 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2024-08-27T22:56:09Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > What kind of Orwellian logic is this when you yourself admit “EVERYONE has bias”? Not taking any side but I think @Niek-de-Wilde is referring to [unconscious bias](https://www.linkedin.com/learning/unconscious-bias-14822310?trk=learning-course_related-content-card&upsellOrderOrigin=default_guest_learning) that we are inevitably “configured”. --- ## Post 21 by @Rasta — 2024-08-27T23:27:00Z As someone who’s not super technical myself, but knows enough to get in trouble and also not on the staff, it honestly looks like in the examples mentioned with @dngray you were the antagonist. He was trying to adopt a wait and see approach while reaching out to the company in question and you, (a marked member of a direct competitor to the discussed company) seemed to be going berserk trying to force your point across. Honestly dngray had more patience than i would have had in that situation. --- ## Post 22 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-28T00:01:29Z Thanks, may be you have a point, but I highly doubt the conclusions you reach are apt given you’re not technical, by your own admission, to understand the discussion. > [@Rasta](#): > > antagonist You’d notice that folks here, by default, rally around the moderators. Being an “antagonist” if you intend to question anything, is the default. Hopefully, you kind folks don’t lynch us “antagonists” for merely _existing_ in spaces of our expertise. > [@Rasta](#): > > a marked member of a direct competitor to the discussed company Interesting choice of words. No, we aren’t a “competitor” (for reasons mentioned in the thread you claim you read). > [@Rasta](#): > > He was trying to adopt a wait and see approach while reaching out to the company in question So, it is “wait and see” for a “European” project, but “liar” & “dishonest” & “authoritative” for non-European ones? (see also the first message in this thread). > [@Rasta](#): > > Honestly dngray had more patience than i would have had in that situation. In my view, they violated at least one community guideline (despite being asked to tone it down): - Trolling, insulting and/or derogatory comments, including personal or political attacks. Daniel also did not reply to my DM, either. > [@Rasta](#): > > seemed to be going berserk trying to force your point across Berserk? Force? Again, interesting choice of words. I’d like to see what made you think that. I am really curious. You can DM me. This topic isn’t for that. --- ## Post 23 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-28T06:36:20Z Now now, no need for the hostile tone. :slight_smile: --- ## Post 24 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-28T06:42:25Z > [@jonah](#): > > It’s important to note that these financial services are **not** anonymous and are subject to “Know Your Customer” (KYC) laws and may require your ID or other identifying information. > [@Rasta](#): > > They have addressed that. It comes down to threat modelling and attack surface, you’re doing KYC with one company rather than giving your card out to every single website, contractor, etc you work with or use. If theres a data breach you just close that one singular card for that one site rather than have to get a new card from the bank and go through the hassle of updating payments everywhere. Thank you both for your replies. I have a follow-up question. I understand that services like [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) can protect you against fraud, and though they are not anonymous, they do protect your privacy to some degree, because you can hide your real name and address. That said, in Europe, and other countries, many banks now provide virtual credit cards (eg: N26). I don’t know what the situation is in the US, but I would not be surprised if some American banks started doing the same thing to compete with my [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com). **My question is this:** _**If your bank who already knows your name and address started offering virtual credit cards at no extra cost, why would you trust [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) instead?**_ To me, it doesn’t make sense. I’ve seen people argue that banks use the information they know about you to sell you stuff, or shares that info with their partners. That’s true. But can we be sure that [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) or any other similar tech company doesn’t do the same? Also, if you ever have any issues with your bank, at least there is a physical building you can go to, to complain in person. You can’t do that with [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com). I am also personally very uncomfortable giving copies of my ID to a faceless company. Every time I have given my ID to a bank, it was in person. Lastly, there are companies similar to [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) that are not as invasive when it comes to KYC requirements. For eg, **[Iron Vest](https://ironvest.com/)** ( **fka Abine Blur** ), which is also exclusively available in the US, has no KYC requirements. And hey have been around much longer than [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com), at least a decade. --- ## Post 25 by @ph00lt0 — 2024-08-28T07:00:14Z it still is the company has always been registered in US but their office is in Bengaluru. --- ## Post 26 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-28T07:44:45Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > I’ve heard it from two other FOSS project leads in the privacy space that the bias against non-Western projects here is overt and overwhelming. Yeah, the amount of times I saw people trying to get something removed from the site or canceled just because some people involved in that project were Russian is just sickening. --- ## Post 28 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-28T10:20:00Z Its one of the reasons why the team always gets the final say and why privacy guides is not a democracy. People can quite heated and emotional in a debate. Most folks would have demanded we remove anything even remotely russian after russia invaded Ukraine, but we didn’t. Moderation will always be a complex topic with a lot of gut feeling involved. While some seems to think its as simple as following a piece of paper such as the COC, folks tend to forget that there are actual volunteer humans behind these pseudonyms, who spend their free time doing their best. And with their already limited time, it sometimes gets hard to discern well meant comments from concern trolls. We always try our best here, but mods are people, and people can make mistakes. --- ## Post 30 by @anon73250778 — 2024-08-28T12:26:19Z The forum seems fine, as a point of view from a Southeast Asian living in my country. I wish there are more global resource that we can use as an alternative for `privacy.com` but the truth is the rest of the team cant possibly check every country’s alternative for a more private online banking. That should be on the rest of the community members in their own respective countries - but then again when we look locally, one can only get disappointed because lets face it, the actually good privacy laws - with teeth that can actually punish offenders - are usually from western ones. I’ve tripped the automoderation bot once with my introduction in the introduce yourself thread and it was resolved (but then again it was early days). I find that the moderation is actually ok enough for my use case and I have no objections really in its current state. I havent really have the free time as much as I want to hang around as much as before. But overall, I like the community here. --- ## Post 31 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-28T12:29:24Z > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > no need for the hostile tone. :slight_smile: Instead of DMing me and asking for what biases I and 2 other projects felt, you’re here attacking me for being _hostile_, while Jonah and Daniel “liked” a post that also insinuated the same (with words like “antagonist”, “going berserk”, “I would lose my patience” etc). Don’t you get it? > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > We always try our best here, but mods are people, and people can make mistakes. Then why come back at us when we try to hold you to “your best” standard. --- ## Post 32 by @pinkandwhite — 2024-08-28T12:33:13Z Is it “Orwellian” to uhhh _checks notes_ call out someone being passive aggressive as being antagonistic and hostile? I guess the official position of the RethinkDNS company must be yes, yes it is. --- ## Post 33 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-28T12:34:22Z I don’t see what point you’re trying to make to correct you, but… > [@pinkandwhite](#): > > RethinkDNS company Rethink is a FOSS project that I put my sweat and blood and money into. Not a company making any profits. Have a good day. --- ## Post 34 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-28T13:05:34Z Im pointing out your way of typing, thats all, im sorry if my comment pointing it out seemed like an attack to you, that wa snot my intention :). Neither did i know you desired that i dmed you. Do you still want me to DM you? It can be either on the forums, or if you desire something with encryption, we can use matrix :slight_smile: --- ## Post 35 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-28T13:07:24Z Just so you know, regulars can flag post and have them become hidden, that doesn’t have to be a mods decision. Its a system where longer existing community members can act as a semi moderator to help out, build into discourse itself. See here for more info: [Understanding Discourse Trust Levels](https://blog.discourse.org/2018/06/understanding-discourse-trust-levels/) --- ## Post 36 by @anon29374801 — 2024-08-28T13:37:39Z This interaction sums up the issue I have with people complaining about moderation. There is a constant stream of misinformation and lack of research by users that forces moderators to act. People here make statements like they are experts in the field and typically, it is found, they don’t know what they are talking about. I find that part of the forum the most aggravating because its hard for me to use this forum as a resource, unless the post is from one of the 5 or 6 members that have proven they can be reliable. --- ## Post 38 by @bluemonk — 2024-08-28T13:52:25Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > the US government could force a company to hand over the data, but the user, but they cannot force them to implement back doors. not related to the discussion, but why can’t the government force companies to implement back doors for them? --- ## Post 39 by @ph00lt0 — 2024-08-28T21:12:39Z A post was split to a new topic: [Do not bump post on edits](/t/do-not-bump-post-on-edits/20405) --- ## Post 40 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2024-08-28T15:06:31Z A lot of the discussion here is aggravated by the simple fact that is an Internet forum. We can feel quite more often not heard or insulted when communicating online. There is a guideline in the forum that talks about always focusing in the arguments not in the person, something along those lines. I think is a great reminder to drive discussions. Try to not take things personal, your learning can be someone’s else future learning. I’m uncountable times incorrect and I’m grateful for having a community like this that can challenge me all the time to make myself a more educated human in all the aspects. In other forums or communities, in similar situations to this where someone raises a problem a moderator would shutdown the conversation or some fanboys would jump to defend the group. In my perspective people had quite a lot of space here to raise their point of views which for me indicates a very open space. I could be wrong but I’m giving a vow of credit in the outcome here. Again, this comment is not to reduce anyone’s pain point with the forum administration, I just feel that if this was a conversation in a bar with some beers we would all be laughing about this. --- ## Post 41 by @overdrawn98901 — 2024-08-28T23:38:34Z Going to follow up with what Cyber-Typhoon said. I think this thread has a few different topics I’ll provide my unsolicited input on :smiley: **On rules, or just being nice** I’m a bit of a hot-head on forums myself, and I suddenly catch myself being combative. Regardless who started what, I think its super important that **most users are here in good faith**. We all have privacy as a joint interest, wildly different knowledge bases, and are in this together to figure out what works best. Let’s not assume malice in one another. I think its super important for us to step back and shake hands when we realize things are heated. I will always try to apologize when I realize I am being unnecessarily aggressive, By being the “bigger person” (even if I started it lol) I also find others also spend this time to reflect on their actions, and it’s always a positive. Moderators should definitely always try to have a cool head, but that isn’t always possible either. Believe it or not, I used to be a mod on other forums, and also ran into this issue with all of the staff. We are humans behind screens with feelings, and its easy to forget that, so human mistakes will be made. Definitely point out to staff when they are being rude, and report it to another mod **who is not heated**. For those with very strong technical background, keep in mind not everyone may be at the same level as you. Even if there are close backgrounds, I think we should come at differing opinions as finding the truth, not winning the argument at all costs. The conversation between ignoramous and dngray has a lot of amazing knowledge transfer from different points of view, and I thought discussion was inching towards a greater undertanding. However, for lack of a better term, the shit throwing made it uncomfortable, and now the shit throwing has made its way here, and no one wants to say “hey, I may have been emotional, let’s get discussion back to a good track.”. If I see a “well I won’t apologize until the other does” then I’ll let that represent their attitude on discourse (pun intended). For general cases, if its a clear attack on you, report it and try not to emotionally engage; shit throwing is a common outcome. If you aren’t sure, clarify what the user meant, and more often than not its just poor wording or phrasing. If someone criticises your arguments or calls you out for fallacies, that is not an attack on you. Clarify what the fallacy was, or step away if it makes you emotional. Sarcasm can also come off as spicy, so don’t serve it as the main dish if its already a heated debate. --- ## Post 42 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-29T17:41:21Z Apologies for disturbing the hive and not responding back :no_mouth:, had a long day or two. Interesting to see that others do feel the same. > [@jonah](#): > > It’s hard to comment on any of these concerns without specific examples. Multiple instances, but I don’t want to point out specific individuals. I disagree with the moderation, not the individuals. Others have cited some examples below. The post that triggered me was this one: [Link](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/aegis-vs-ente-auth/16881/2). Posting the Code of Conduct just below a flagrant violation would be comic if it was not tragic. > [@ignoramous](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/niek-de-wilde/48/61_2.png) Niek-de-Wilde: > > > whats written on the site is generally perceived as the truth > > What kind of Orwellian logic is this when you yourself admit “EVERYONE has bias”? 100% the problematic logic for me. Incredible claims require incredible proof, so I understand not taking every tinfoil take on established players. But most of the claims on the website themselves do not give incredible proofs for their claims. For example, the claim here ([Link](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/advanced/tor-overview/#safely-connecting-to-tor)): > We very strongly discourage combining Tor with a VPN in any other manner. Do not configure your connection in a way which resembles any of the following: > You → Tor → VPN → Internet > You → VPN → Tor → VPN → Internet > Any other configuration This claim is disputed by people like [The Grugq](https://substack.com/@grugq) in [talks like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XaYdCdwiWU&t=2745s). This, along with parroting of claims when people themselves have no expertise (and often without a source) is something I firmly believe the moderation team should be actively discouraging. Ideally it should be the NORM to cite your sources in your responses as much as you can. It will improve the quality of conversation for people involved and readers both. > [@anon48875053](#): > > Yeah, the amount of times I saw people trying to get something removed from the site or canceled just because some people involved in that project were Russian is just sickening. Another thing that constantly irks me. It is quite insane that EU and US companies don’t have to prove half the tests services based in other countries have to. Especially when they, especially the US, are just as incredibly shady in privacy practices as any other despot. If anyone has forgotten, US has been named as a culprit in most of the international mass surveillance incidents in the past. Coming to tools, some of the criteria are also contradictory and absurd. They look like they were made to fit the tools available, instead of using them to search for tools. > [@anon73250778](#): > > I find that the moderation is actually ok enough for my use case and I have no objections really in its current state. I am also “fine” with it most of the time, including instances of deleting/hiding my responses when I was acting crazy. But you only need to hurt trust once. > **Off topic (Forced Backdoors)** > > > [@bluemonk](#): > > > > not related to the discussion, but why can’t the government force companies to implement back doors for them? > > They absolutely can, and it was even easier before US courts ruled code is speech. That is why things like warrant canaries exist. Examples: [RSA](https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backdoor-in-rsas-cryptography-a-technical-primer/), [Juniper VPN](https://www.wired.com/2015/12/juniper-networks-hidden-backdoors-show-the-risk-of-government-backdoors/), and [Papers written by policy advisors and senate lobbyists](https://www.bu.edu/riscs/2021/05/03/abuse-resistant-government-backdoors/) --- ## Post 43 by @Pragmatic — 2024-08-29T18:06:03Z On several occasions on this forum, I’ve given my opinion in a constructive and respectful manner, without insults or threats, and as I disagreed with the opinion of some, my posts were reported and deleted by the modos. I argued that DDG should be removed from the site for deliberately censoring pro-Russian content, but not pro-EU or pro-US content, and that this was bad for neutrality. The site offers tools for freedom of expression and circumventing censorship, but you have to believe that things are different on this forum. You have to follow the crowd or risk being reported and censored. --- ## Post 44 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-29T19:32:24Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > They look like they were made to fit the tools available, instead of using them to search for tools. Conveniently, these “tools”, more often than not, are the ones moderators some how “like” (unconscious bias, as someone put it) more than the others. Anyone pointing that out, is simply going “berserk” and is unwelcomed as “hostile”. I wonder if the mods received replies from NextDNS (a “tool” they seem to “like”), and if it made _any_ difference if they didn’t. > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > If someone criticises your arguments or calls you out for fallacies, that is not an attack on you. Anyone can skim for 2 minutes and link to a relevant Wikipedia page of fallacies without even knowing what it actually means (ironically enough). For instance, using “argument from authority” can be a stand-in for, “oh shit, here’s someone who knows what they’re talking about; how do I get them to fuck off”; and when mods do so, the actual imposing “authority” here (“what’s on the website is generally the truth”) are they themselves (even to the extent of arguing from made up realities while requiring “proof” from everyone else). > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > Definitely point out to staff when they are being rude, and report it to another mod **who is not heated**. You’d note every single mod active on this thread “liked” [this post](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/community-moderation-and-euro-centrism/20367/21) that has multiple _ad hominem_ remarks, violating the very _code of conduct_ they hold everyone else to. A cult-like behaviour, the way I see it (which harks back to OP’s original claim about lack of any kind of diversity in thought). > [@Cyber-Typhoon](#): > > In other forums or communities, in similar situations … some fanboys would jump to defend the group I think you’ve failed to notice fanbois in this thread and in other threads. And given the browbeating I was subject to here by a mod that went unchecked (and even encouraged by one other poster here who went, “If it was me, I would have lost my patience sooner”), I feel revulsive engaging at all. Might be wise to limit myself to topics pertaining to _The RethinkDNS Company_. That said, for all its flaws, PrivacyGuides is probably better than other similar forums for _most_ folks. I especially find Jonah and Daniel to be _exceptional_. Just not when they are at my throats, especially when I am trying to contribute in good faith. --- ## Post 45 by @mika — 2024-08-29T19:37:17Z This thread certainly has me rethinking my usage of RethinkDNS :grimacing: > [@Pragmatic](#): > > On several occasions on this forum, I’ve given my opinion in a constructive and respectful manner, without insults or threats, and as I disagreed with the opinion of some, my posts were reported and deleted by the modos. > > I argued that DDG should be removed from the site for deliberately censoring pro-Russian content, but not pro-EU or pro-US content, and that this was bad for neutrality. Were those topics of discussion moderated and removed? I recall that discussion happening - I was a part of it - and it not being acted upon because the community at large (myself included) felt that what DDG was doing made sense. I do not recall any bans or deletions or ‘censorship’ or anything like that, but I might have just missed it. --- ## Post 46 by @Pragmatic — 2024-08-29T20:01:59Z No, it was in the discussion “Censorship in DDG” where two of my posts were reported by some and censored by the modos, because I had argued that it was not normal for DDG to censor pro-Russian content, but not Western, that it lacked neutrality. > [@Censorship in DDG](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/censorship-in-ddg/20004): > > Hi all. After seeing some news, I want to make a search in DDG about which companies are boycotted regarding their support for Israel. When I use “boycott and Israel” the Duck Asssist icon disappears. When I delete “Israel” it came back. Anyone has similar experience? I used the feedback button, but if there is any way to know if it’s intentional or not?) [IMG\_5311] Edit: I cannot add the other picture, the system does not allow. --- ## Post 47 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-29T20:05:42Z > [@mika](#): > > This thread certainly has me rethinking my usage of RethinkDNS :grimacing: At this point, I should know better than to involve myself in these types of discussions, but oh well. I have noticed that there is a minority of PG Forum and Techlore Forum members that just love to try and go after projects just because they don’t like someone who is involved in that project. Some examples: The CEO of Brave is a homophobe, Brave Browser or Brave Search shouldn’t be used. I don’t like Daniel Micay, GrapheneOS shouldn’t be used. I don’t like how the developer of LibreTube responded to me, LibreTube shouldn’t be used. I don’t like the responses of RethinkDNS developer, I will Rethink (pun intended) my usage of it. * * * It’s almost like these people that are doing this are completely saint and never did or do anything wrong or bad. The above is obviously not true and is impossible. Would you like to be cancelled or your work to be written off just because someone finds out that you did/do something wrong or did something that some people wouldn’t like? Think about it. --- ## Post 48 by @Rasta — 2024-08-29T20:19:50Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > You’d note every single mod active on this thread “liked” [this post](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/community-moderation-and-euro-centrism/20367/21) that has multiple _ad hominem_ remarks, violating the very _code of conduct_ they hold everyone else to. If you would reread the post in question, I did not in fact make any ad hominem attacks on you. I stated how it appeared to me, from my perspective of the conversation. There is a difference between a direct attack and giving a viewpoint from someone who’s looking at the conversation from the outside. --- ## Post 49 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-29T20:22:23Z > [@Pragmatic](#): > > I argued that DDG should be removed from the site for deliberately censoring pro-Russian content, but not pro-EU or pro-US content, and that this was bad for neutrality. Does this only apply to DDG? How about Brave Search and Startpage? --- ## Post 50 by @Pragmatic — 2024-08-29T20:25:24Z I don’t know if Brave Search practices censorship and regarding Startpage, it relies on Google and Bing for their results, not like DDG who voluntarily made this decision. --- ## Post 51 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-29T20:27:04Z DDG pretty much relies on Bing. --- ## Post 52 by @Pragmatic — 2024-08-29T20:31:04Z Yes, but DDG made the decision to censor pro-Russian content, not Bing. I don’t remember reading that Bing made this decision and DDG followed it. --- ## Post 53 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-29T20:33:59Z DDG has always provided me with awful results anyway, Brave Search is as best as it gets, haven’t had any issues so far. --- ## Post 54 by @Pragmatic — 2024-08-29T20:37:45Z Yes censorship and terrible results, as you say, I also use Brave Search --- ## Post 55 by @Rasta — 2024-08-29T20:43:16Z > [@anon48875053](#): > > I have noticed that there is a minority of PG Forum and Techlore Forum members that just love to try and go after projects just because they don’t like someone who is involved in that project. I’d argue those are some widely varying examples you’ve given. From idealogical issues with someone, to paranoia, and more. Personally I’m not a fan of the way Daniel Micay or GOS in general handle criticism, or even just general media outreach and communication. However I still use GOS and have been for 8 months now. It’s the best secured OS available. They still respond better than the Libretube developer did when handling the recent Youtube issues, and when there are better, more stable options that communicate and update like Newpipe, Grayjay, or Freetube, why keep that recommendation. The issues with Brave come down to ideology which everyone is allowed to have their views and beliefs on. PG shouldn’t, and I don’t think does, evaluate products based on their ideological viewpoints. As to RethinkDNS, I’ve never tried it, I use NextDNS myself, but that wouldn’t stop me from recommending it. People who know more about the subject than I do recommend it and seeing a dev get defensive or upset once or twice doesn’t necessarily take away from the project, see GOS points above. I have no issues with the project, but would think twice about trying it now, just like I had to do some thinking before deciding to give GOS a try because of their public reputation and history. --- ## Post 56 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-29T20:46:41Z Moderation of course is always looked at through the lens of each person individually, we put our own emotions, value systems and “faith” into any “confrontation” with an opposing opinion into these things. For me personally, the moderators have helped by giving advice and even suggested the right tool to effectively overcome the language barrier so that I can express myself as if I were thinking in English, if of course such a description would be appropriate here. > **Off Topic about DDG** > > I see you’ve been repeating a lot about DDG censorship. I am interested in this topic because I use it. > I literally just typed “pro-Russian news sites” and the search results are adequate. > > ![SCR-20240829-uiuh](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/2/2ccfad009db10d10149cfb78d29426a01655f8c2.png) --- ## Post 57 by @ph00lt0 — 2024-08-29T20:51:43Z just good to add some perspective here. when posting my reply here I actually was not a mod yet. could probably be worded better but in essence i stand my the meaning of it. then about the coc mention. That was done in reply to other comments that got removed due to violations of the coc, not the replies still visible. --- ## Post 58 by @ph00lt0 — 2024-08-29T20:58:57Z Besides thst critisim (like you have on PG) also on tools has a place on this forum all of those examples you give are actually recommended on the website, and there is no intend of changing that at all. This does not mean they cannot be discussed or challanged. --- ## Post 59 by @deviancy — 2024-08-29T21:21:29Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > You’d note every single mod active on this thread “liked” [this post](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/community-moderation-and-euro-centrism/20367/21) that has multiple _ad hominem_ remarks, violating the very _code of conduct_ they hold everyone else to. A cult-like behaviour, the way I see it (which harks back to OP’s original claim about lack of any kind of diversity in thought). My dude… I’ve been trying to see things from your POV, but this is a bit much. For that post to contain _any_ ad hominem the definition would have to be stretched so much as to make it meaningless. An ad hominem is when you try to make the correctness of your argument based on the character of the person you’re arguing against. E.g. “No one should listen to X because they like to sniff glue!”. Calling someone a name (which didn’t happen in said post) isn’t an ad-hom. Naming you an antagonist is barely moving the needle on aggressive communication. --- ## Post 60 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-29T21:33:38Z > **offtopic** > > > [@deviancy](#): > > > > Calling someone a name (which didn’t happen in said post) isn’t an ad-hom. > > The context is, @Rasta (still!) incorrectly assumed Rethink is a “direct competitor” to NextDNS and that meant I was arguing in bad faith. And in that context, despite self-admitting to their technical inadequacy in understanding the exchange between me and Daniel, judged that I went “berserk” (which, last I checked, meant “crazy”) in trying to “force” (as in, being a bully) my point. > > > [@deviancy](#): > > > > _any_ ad hominem the definition would have to be stretched so much as to make it meaningless. > > This is what the dictionary I have says, “An _ad hominem_ remark appeals to personal feelings instead of logical reasons.” > > > [@deviancy](#): > > > > I’ve been trying to see things from your POV > > Thank you. You’re kinder than most. > > > [@Rasta](#): > > > > If you would reread the post in question > > I [offered you to DM me](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/community-moderation-and-euro-centrism/20367/22) to discuss why you used the words you did. That offer still stands, and I’d appreciate it immensely, if you did so. --- ## Post 61 by @deviancy — 2024-08-29T21:39:39Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > This is what the dictionary I have says, “An _ad hominem_ remark appeals to personal feelings instead of logical reasons.” Ah, I see. That isn’t even close to what I’ve learned in various philosophy courses. [Rational Wiki’s entry](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) is what I think of when ad-hom is mentioned. It specifically calls out that insults are not ad-hom. Regardless, I won’t keep bogging down the discussion over definitions. --- ## Post 62 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-29T22:03:04Z > [@deviancy](#): > > Regardless, I won’t keep bogging down the discussion over definitions. No wait… > [@deviancy](#): > > It specifically calls out that insults are not ad-hom. So: It wasn’t an ad hom, but an insult? And then, mods “heart” the insults? PG Code of Conduct goes, “The following behaviors are considered harassment and are unacceptable within our community: Trolling, insulting and/or derogatory comments, including personal or political attacks.” > **offtopic** > > > [@deviancy](#): > > > > what I’ve learned in various philosophy courses > > Argument from authority, mate… but it is the right kind of authority you bring (: --- ## Post 63 by @overdrawn98901 — 2024-08-29T23:28:18Z I have a request to split this into two topics - CoC discussion and the Eurocentrism discussion. Both are important, but distinct. --- ## Post 64 by @mika — 2024-08-29T23:47:20Z > [@anon48875053](#): > > At this point, I should know better than to involve myself in these types of discussions, but oh well. > > I have noticed that there is a minority of PG Forum and Techlore Forum members that just love to try and go after projects just because they don’t like someone who is involved in that project. Some examples: > > The CEO of Brave is a homophobe, Brave Browser or Brave Search shouldn’t be used. > > I don’t like Daniel Micay, GrapheneOS shouldn’t be used. > > I don’t like how the developer of LibreTube responded to me, LibreTube shouldn’t be used. > > I don’t like the responses of RethinkDNS developer, I will Rethink (pun intended) my usage of it. > > * * * > > It’s almost like these people that are doing this are completely saint and never did or do anything wrong or bad. > > The above is obviously not true and is impossible. Would you like to be cancelled or your work to be written off just because someone finds out that you did/do something wrong or did something that some people wouldn’t like? Think about it. I never said or did any of this. I prefer it when devs/companies remain professional instead of getting mired in forum drama. That’s just my preference. You can do whatever you want. I never said otherwise. You’ve written multiple paragraphs in response to a single sentence, which you did not even accurately understand. Please reflect on that. --- ## Post 65 by @mika — 2024-08-29T23:51:46Z Thanks for sharing. I can’t read your full posts, since they’ve been hidden, but from the quotes I don’t see anything that necessarily warranted removal (even though I disagree with the assertions in those posts). It seems more clarity on enforcement is needed. PG is ultimately a private entity and is allowed to censor whomever and whatever they want, but I think some visibility into the whys and hows would be best. --- ## Post 66 by @overdrawn98901 — 2024-08-30T00:33:23Z @Pragmatic didn’t mean to reply to you, this was meant for @ignoramous As someone who had no skin in the original discussion between you two, not a staff member but just another user, I hope I can provide some context as a third party. > [@ignoramous](#): > > For instance, using “argument from authority” can be a stand-in for, “oh shit, here’s someone who knows what they’re talking about; how do I get them to fuck off”; Key word is “can be”, and I think that was a great opportunity to clear the air, which just didn’t happen. I’ll have to say my opinion on the discussion to provide more input: directly linking to a fallacy I find a bit rude (but not egregiously insulting), and not relevant to that discussion. The “fallacy fallacy” is that the inherit idea may still be true even if argued poorly (i.e “Mathemetics is my favorite subject, therefore 1+1 must equal 2” - horrible argument, but technically the result is true for other reasons). Regardless of whether or not you argued from authority and failing to provide arguments on another discussion (I haven’t bothered to discern that myself) has no bearing in that discussion on hand. I definitely think that discussion may have been a better DM between you and dngray in hindsight. However, you did not choose to de-escalate at that point, and that is matter of fact. You can blame moderation for throwing the first punch, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, but how you react is up to you and you only. This also does not absolve moderation of their issues either - they can also choose to not be spicy and should be better at de-escalation when possible. Its quite easy to get into a shit throwing fest, but as I said apologizing and then coming at this from a calmer point of view gives everyone time to reflect on what happened and best next steps. We certainly hope moderation apologizes first in most cases. But hey if we remain calm and cool, and they look like the assholes, most readers will start siding with us. If we are all being spicy, well now its just drama. Here, my perception is that you have quite the bone to pick, and I can definitely pick that up through your tonality. What seems to be happening now is this is coming off as hostile towards somewhat respected members (we can ack there are some issues), and so now many people are reading your posts with that in mind. Fewer are considering your position given the tonality. Even if you are 100% right, its definitely a hard angle to get some change in the community. I think you have some points, and I think I also have now noticed some general issues from staff, but I think we should take a different approach if we want to be effective. > [@ignoramous](#): > > You’d note every single mod active on this thread “liked” [this post](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/community-moderation-and-euro-centrism/20367/21) that has multiple _ad hominem_ remarks, violating the very _code of conduct_ they hold everyone else to. A cult-like behaviour, the way I see it (which harks back to OP’s original claim about lack of any kind of diversity in thought). Have you ever seen Pirates of the Caribbean? There is a quote that goes “the rules are more like guidelines”. Same applies to most forums, chatrooms, and the like I’ve been on. From my experience, we intentionally left the rules vague as to be flexible in enforcement and handle nuance in case users came at us like a rule-book and demanded our heads. That also left it to interpretation, and all the pros and cons that brings and bias from staff. But generally if we were active, nice, and whatnot, we were generally respected on the community. I suspect the same happens on this forum, as does nearly every other forum with a community. It works for most circumstances, but can definitely be an escape hatch for questionable behavior in terms of favorites (staff and members alike). If there is not consistent moderation, then the attitude of the general forum shifts with it. Not saying this is the best or not, just my experience in how CoC is often interpreted and not a playbook. I wouldn’t confuse this with super sinister cult like behavior, which has some clearly negative connotations. I think of this as just the general issues with tribal mentality that creep into every aspect of our lives (i.e. nepotism). I think tackling these things requires taking many very acute and specific instances of conduct that can be generalized to a greater lesson and applied. If the community is actually on board with this, then they will due their part in keeping the vibes as well. We should aid staff in providing these examples and saying what we would specifically like as a result - just saying they suck isn’t really gonna do much. If you feel the staff is so far gone, the community is also absolutely wild and horrible, then often its best just to leave; I really don’t think that is the case here, and I think the staff actively would like to improve. * * * I know you said before you think reporting staff is pointless because other staff read it and think whatever. I actually think its one of the best ways to really stick it to the staff as a community member. If you have a staff member being an asshole or just unhelpful, and you get a bunch of community members to report it and talk to eachother about it, now the staff are forced to look at all of your reports of this staff member and talk to them about why they are being reported. If a bunch of reports on staff simply go unnoticed or not commented on by the staff, then I think its time to raise pitchforks. But I think we may have skipped a few steps and we are at the pitchfork stage. The staff are mostly comprised of volunteers, probably also learning how to shape the community, which we can provide input on. How about this: lets tread back and focus on us pointing out the specific issues with less negative spin on it, give them a chance to look at it and see what the community also thinks, and lets take it from there. Thoughts? * * * PS, I put a lot of thinking into this post, and I’m hoping not only ignoramous read this, but the staff as well. I hope we can de-escalate a bit and get to the meat of the meta discussion. --- ## Post 67 by @overdrawn98901 — 2024-08-30T00:45:50Z Maybe I should be a staff member with that wall of text :rofl: apologies for the novel I wrote --- ## Post 68 by @ignoramous — 2024-08-30T01:03:42Z > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > better DM between you and dngray in hindsight I think you read past the part where I mentioned Daniel did not bother replying to my DM. > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > de-escalate at that point Multiple instances in the original thread where I request Daniel to cease being derogatory. > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > my perception is that you have quite the bone to pick This is the right thread for it? Others are free to bring their perspectives, but seeing the way this discussion has manifest, I doubt other project developers would come out now against “respected members” of this forum. > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > get to the meat of the meta discussion. Surprised anyone thinks a non-European user, who brought up their grievances, then harassed by multiple mods, isn’t the “meat” here. > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > Thoughts? I agree with your post more than I disagree. Thanks for your considerate response. --- ## Post 69 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-30T05:15:07Z > [@Rasta](#): > > Personally I’m not a fan of the way Daniel Micay or GOS in general handle criticism, or even just general media outreach and communication. However I still use GOS and have been for 8 months now. It’s the best secured OS available. They still respond better than the Libretube developer did when handling the recent Youtube issues, and when there are better, more stable options that communicate and update like Newpipe, Grayjay, or Freetube, why keep that recommendation. That’s fine. But there are plenty of people who are just being hostile towards projects just because they don’t like someone involved in them. There is a guy on the Techlore Forum who is actively trying to harm the project and prevent people from using GrapheneOS. He is also actively insulting Daniel Micay and the rest of the project on Mastadon, calling them idiots, etc., and this continues for like a few years. Recently, the same guy called one of the forum members a "waste’ and used some other insults that I don’t remember, and he is still engaging on that forum… There is a difference between you who can dislike something and the difference between someone who dislikes something and tries to harm it or put it down because of it. --- ## Post 70 by @anon48875053 — 2024-08-30T05:23:06Z > [@Rasta](#): > > The issues with Brave come down to ideology which everyone is allowed to have their views and beliefs on. PG shouldn’t, and I don’t think does, evaluate products based on their ideological viewpoints. That’s also fine. I have my own ideaologies too, one of them being related to FLOSS software, but I will not completely write off other software just because it’s not FLOSS. Let’s take Apple and iOS. For example, I really don’t like Apple, their proprietary locked-down OSs, etc., but I still recommend iOS and MacOS quite a bit because these are some of the best options for privacy and security. As for Brave, it’s one of the best browsers regardless of who is the CEO. --- ## Post 71 by @jonah — 2024-08-30T06:17:42Z Franky, there are a lot of conflicting opinions in this thread. Historically, I’ve personally pretty much never locked or hid posts outside of benign reasons like closing spam or duplicates (and still don’t because I’m bad at moderating lol), and then people complained that people with shitty opinions were just taking over conversations on the forum. _So then_ we get more team members and moderators to step up and start cleaning things up around here, who are far better at doing so than I am, and we get people complaining that they’re being silenced and that arguments are ending up one-sided. The unfortunate reality is that there isn’t a “correct answer” to this situation. I think that there are valid complaints here, but I’m also hesitant to make a lot of changes for what I _suspect_ is more of a vocal minority rather than feedback that’s representative of the entire community. Generally, I personally receive a lot of feedback about how our community is far more informative/nice/welcoming than _other communities_ which I won’t name, and for the most part I agree, but drama (like this) seems to bubble up from time to time too. It’s tricky. What I might propose to the [@team](/groups/team) is simply: If one of us is involved in some argument that is getting “heated” (say for example the NextDNS one between @ignoramous and @dngray), we should just ask another team member to handle it from a moderation perspective, instead of doing so ourselves. I feel like we have the resources to do this, so there’s really no reason I can think of to be performing moderation actions on a thread you’re personally already involved with. I think this would prevent pretty much all the problems I personally have with the current state of forum moderation. * * * > [@ignoramous](#): > > I especially find Jonah and Daniel to be _exceptional_. Just not when they are at my throats, especially when I am trying to contribute in good faith. Are we _really_ at your throat though? :innocent: I think that you are mischaracterizing @dngray’s statements from the other thread here. When he’s talking about trying to move on from a specific topic, you’re describing that here as him telling you to “shut up.” When he’s asking for additional sources, you’re describing that as him insulting your intelligence or expertise. Do I agree with _everything_ @dngray was saying in that thread? Meh… not _really_, but at the same time I think you are reading too much into “meanings behind the words” that may not even be there. The NextDNS thread was from 4 months ago and resulted in changes being made to the site anyways, so I’m kind of surprised to hear it’s still an issue. Is there something unresolved? > [@anon49578468](#): > > This claim is disputed by people like [The Grugq](https://substack.com/@grugq) in [talks like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XaYdCdwiWU&t=2745s). This advice is generally bad, which is why it is not on the website. The fun thing about the internet is that you can find counter-arguments to every single claim online. I can find a million resources like the one you have found which say to do VPN over Tor, and a million resources which say to do Tor over VPN, etc. It may be the case that you should not use a VPN before Tor if: 1. You are physically moving around to different networks, **and** 2. You are successfully avoiding IRL surveillance, **and** 3. You are successfully avoiding being fingerprinted by other means, like not connecting with the same device at these different locations, etc. …because then using the same VPN at multiple locations could give you away. I don’t think most people have the resources to pull something like this off effectively though, so it is not a scenario I am particularly concerned about when writing this guide. Plus, even in this scenario using a VPN _after_ Tor isn’t going to help you either, so the advice given in the talk is still bad. _I suspect_ that he gave this advice because at the time of the talk (2012!) HTTPS was not ubiquitous, and so the risk of a malicious Tor exit node was far greater. Today, person in this scenario would likely be best off not using a VPN at all. In other media, The Grugq also [argues against his own advice](https://medium.com/@thegrugq/tor-and-its-discontents-ef5164845908) that you should use Tor first anyways, acknowledging that Tor usage being visible to your ISP can be riskier than using a VPN, which is exactly what we claim as well. > [@ignoramous](#): > > Not everything is “researched”, is it? For instance, [the section on “Anonymous routing”](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/advanced/communication-network-types/#anonymous-routing) looks like it was put up haphazardly. How does one research and come to a strawman conclusion that `Just like other decentralized platforms, adding features is more complex for developers than on a centralized platform`? It _is_ typically more challenging to add features to decentralized platforms, because doing so requires active buy-in from the entire user-base. For example, Facebook can add E2EE to everyone’s messenger with the flip of a switch, whereas XMPP hasn’t managed to get well-functioning E2EE off the ground in 20 years. Other examples: DNSSEC adoption among .com/.net domains still being in single-digit percentages, it took until 2019 to make HTTPS mandatory, etc. One could argue this is a feature and not a bug, although as a noted XMPP hater myself I have to say I prefer a more centralized approach to development :slight_smile: Since numerous people in this thread have done this, I have to say I dislike it when people quote the website to complain about something, while omitting sentences directly before or after their quote which elaborate on the thing they’re complaining about. > Just like other decentralized platforms, adding features is more complex for developers than on a centralized platform. Hence, features may be lacking or incompletely implemented, such as offline message relaying or message deletion. Perhaps the website is not clear enough on what we actually mean though. I generally stand by the idea that every statement on the site is _accurate_, so when people complain that something is not it seems far more likely to me that the statement is simply _misunderstood_, which is absolutely possible. There are a lot of statements/pages on the site that don’t (yet) live up to my personal standards of clarity, the types of communications page is probably one of them :slight_smile: > [@anon48875053](#): > > There is a guy on the Techlore Forum who is actively trying to harm the project and prevent people from using GrapheneOS. I find it dubious that some lone internet commenter could do either of these things. Saying some guy on the internet is going to prevent people from doing something is like… I don’t know, saying a flat earther is going to “prevent people” from thinking the Earth is round or something. And just like how normal people are able to simply use their brains and deduce that the Earth is indeed round, I think that everybody here is perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions about GrapheneOS or any other project, and are not going to base their opinions off those of a single random stranger. I have seen zero evidence that GrapheneOS has suffered any “harm” outside of harm which is self-inflicted, and that will probably never change. Regardless, Techlore is a completely separate project with completely separate moderation policies and practices, and so it is not helpful to bring up here. This would be best addressed on their forum instead. --- ## Post 72 by @ph00lt0 — 2024-08-30T06:44:31Z > [@jonah](#): > > What I might propose to the [@team](/groups/team) is simply: If one of us is involved in some argument that is getting “heated” (say for example the NextDNS one between @ignoramous and @dngray), we should just ask another team member to handle it from a moderation perspective i think this has already been happening mostly from what i have seen, but yeah that is a good idea generally. --- ## Post 73 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-30T07:06:17Z Seems like a good thing to mention in the upcoming volunteers handbook. > > > Changes proposed in this PR: > > - work in progress > > > > > > > - [x] I… agree to the terms listed below: >
Contribution terms (click to expand) > 1) I am the sole author of this work. > 2) I agree to grant Privacy Guides a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, irrevocable license with the right to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sublicensees, to reproduce, modify, display, perform, relicense, and distribute my contribution as part of this project. > 3) I have disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest in my post. > 4) I agree to the Community Code of Conduct. >
--- ## Post 76 by @freddy — 2024-08-30T10:13:49Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/niek-de-wilde/48/61_2.png) Niek-de-Wilde: > > > whats written on the site is generally perceived as the truth > > What kind of Orwellian logic is this when you yourself admit “EVERYONE has bias”? Truth perhaps is the wrong word. I’m not going to get into a discussion of the works of Derrida here, but I think Niek is trying to say that the content our site is generally regarded as factual. We try and uphold high standards of integrity, and of course we don’t run ads or have a site littered with affiliate links. We’re more than happy to change things if they’re pointed out as wrong/incorrect - thats what open source is all about :grinning: > [@ignoramous](#): > > Not everything is “researched”, is it? We do our best to research everything on the site. Not every page is perfect, but we’re trying to change that. Some pages are better than others, and we are constantly updating things. If you think that particular section is poorly produced feel free to open a discussion on the forum. > [@anon49578468](#): > > This claim is disputed by people like [The Grugq](https://substack.com/@grugq) in [talks like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XaYdCdwiWU&t=2745s). This, along with parroting of claims when people themselves have no expertise (and often without a source) is something I firmly believe the moderation team should be actively discouraging. Ideally it should be the NORM to cite your sources in your responses as much as you can. It will improve the quality of conversation for people involved and readers both. I’m a big fan of Grugq however on this point we differ, and thats absolutely fine. FWIW, this is from the [Tor Project wiki](https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/trac/-/wikis/doc/TorPlusVPN#you---vpnssh---tor): > You can route Tor through VPN/SSH services. That _might_ prevent your ISP etc from seeing that you’re using Tor ([VPN/SSH Fingerprinting below](https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorPlusVPN#VPNSSHFingerprinting)). On one hand, VPNs are more popular than Tor, so you won’t stand out as much, on the other hand, in some countries replacing an encrypted Tor connection with an encrypted VPN or SSH connection, will be suspicious as well. SSH tunnels are not so popular. > Once the VPN client has connected, the VPN tunnel will be the machine’s default Internet connection, and TBB (Tor Browser Bundle) (or Tor client) will route through it. > This can be a fine idea, assuming your VPN/SSH provider’s network is in fact sufficiently safer than your own network. See also @jonah’s comment [here](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/community-moderation-and-euro-centrism/20367/71). > [@anon48875053](#): > > I don’t like Daniel Micay, GrapheneOS shouldn’t be used. I use GrapheneOS every day and think it’s great. Whatever one’s view’s of the leadership of the project, the product itself is very good. It’s the old ‘seperating the art from the artist’ argument… > [@jonah](#): > > What I might propose to the [@team](/groups/team) is simply: If one of us is involved in some argument that is getting “heated” (say for example the NextDNS one between @ignoramous and @dngray), we should just ask another team member to handle it from a moderation perspective, instead of doing so ourselves. I feel like we have the resources to do this, so there’s really no reason I can think of to be performing moderation actions on a thread you’re personally already involved with. This seems like a very sensible idea - fully in favour :+1: --- ## Post 77 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-30T13:24:36Z > **Offtopic (Tor)** > > > [@jonah](#): > > > > This advice is generally bad, which is why it is not on the website. > > The quote from PG says “Do not use” instead of explaining where it might be useful. Not saying PG is providing “wrong” information, but saying its omitting scenarios where it might be useful. > > > [@jonah](#): > > > > The Grugq also [argues against his own advice](https://medium.com/@thegrugq/tor-and-its-discontents-ef5164845908) > > His argument about sticking out and previous argument about network level threats are not contradictory. They are simply analysing two different threat models. I can provide plenty of reputable sources that talk about network analysis on Tor by non-state actors, and how exit node → VPN prevents this. What you have articulated below is something that should be added to the website with regards to where it is useful. > [@jonah](#): > > The fun thing about the internet is that you can find counter-arguments to every single claim online This feels like an example of dismissing sane arguments that go against the website. I am not presenting a random blog post by some click farm bot. Grungq is a very reputable source. Please don’t discredit it by saying you can find “valid” counter arguments for every single claim. This is exactly the issue I wanted resolved when I talked about sourceless claims on the forum. > **Offtopic (DDG and Censorship)** > > I can’t find the one person talking about DDG and censorship. But I feel it should be added to the entry about DDG that they do censor results based on something other than algorithms that are the same for every website. I would be loath to trust a search engine that does not treat every website as the same when ranking them, especially since incidents like Iraqi WMDs do not inspire trust in US imposed norms of truthful reporting. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of Russian Misinformation campaigns. > [@jonah](#): > > What I might propose to the [@team](/groups/team) is simply: If one of us is involved in some argument that is getting “heated” (say for example the NextDNS one between @ignoramous and @dngray), we should just ask another team member to handle it from a moderation perspective, instead of doing so ourselves. I feel like we have the resources to do this, so there’s really no reason I can think of to be performing moderation actions on a thread you’re personally already involved with. Sounds good. The solution for the sourceless claims and eurocentrism is also simple: Provide reputable sources when making claims about any tools, protocols, or companies. --- ## Post 78 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2024-08-30T13:36:40Z How would sources solve eurocentrism though( even though we esthablished here that we are not euro focused, but could be “western world” focused. In any case, I am all for adding more sources, but we would have to find a way to add them without adding too much clutter, the side can already by pretty word heavy for non techies as is. To hook up a hyper link to every sentence would probbaly be a bit much, but maybe we can provide more “further reading” sections? or else, maybe provide the used sources in the PR? --- ## Post 80 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-30T17:53:49Z > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > How would sources solve eurocentrism though It would stop people from saying “Ente bad cuz its in India” or “OpenOffice bad cuz big bad Russia” or “Adguard not good cuz reasons” and other childish non-technical takes without providing incredible, specific proof about what exactly makes the specific service/tool/platform bad. > [@benm](#): > > This is just a dumb position. It’s not anyone’s job to be worried that their ideas are not universally applicable. This is a basic aspect of social interaction. You take what people have to offer and you put it into your own context. > > Communities that survive for a long time either enforce uniformity or they shut down the complainers who try to shift the culture of the group. > > To put it simply, stop complaining. You have people here who are have devoted serious energy to developing privacy solutions. Let them moderate the forum how they want within reason Lmao what a take. Hopefully most people here do not think like you do. Some points: 1. It is everyone’s job to be more mindful if we want privacy to actually reach the masses, and if they operate on a global platform looking to serve as a universal outlet. Diversity of opinions and backgrounds enriches discussions. 2. Communities that survive long actually adapt and modify, not enforce uniformity :slight_smile: 3. I will not stop complaining until I feel the forum is a lost cause. I am not aware of PG working on developing a privacy solution, maybe you meant aggregating them? Of course they are free to moderate the forum they own as they like it, its merely a suggestion from my part. I can’t dictate their actions, nor can they dictate mine. Please be mindful of the Code of Conduct before replying :frowning: --- ## Post 82 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-30T18:19:33Z I am sorry you feel that way :slight_smile: Good luck with your 53K member group! --- ## Post 84 by @jonah — 2024-09-09T14:31:33Z Regarding this feedback, we are going to be stricter about low effort, low quality posting and have published a statement on what types of posts are no longer permitted. Hopefully this improves the situation! > [@Regarding bad-faith arguments in the privacy community](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/regarding-bad-faith-arguments-in-the-privacy-community/20737): > > The Privacy Guides community is one of the best privacy-related communities on the internet, and I think we have generally done a good job at promoting a positive and respectful environment where people can learn and grow. Unfortunately, as a public forum we are not immune to the small minority of individuals who feel empowered to spread anger, hostility, and divisiveness by their anonymity and general lack of consequences on the internet. From now on, we are going to be strict about requiring… --- ## Post 85 by @jonah — 2026-06-29T19:43:24Z --- ## Post 86 by @jonah — 2026-06-29T19:43:26Z cleaning up off-topic posts