Is open discussion with minimal limitations a value or a danger? Here I try to understand the people who are afraid of it and answer their concerns.

The starting point for this post was a Code of Conduct posted by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It doesn’t specify severe penalties for violation, though groups within W3C could in principle reference it as a basis for draconian rules. It recommends resolving issues by discussion in preference to censure or expulsion. So that much is OK. This code is much less of a problem than some which certain science fiction conventions have proclaimed.

Still, its list of “unacceptable behaviors” is broad, and that raises concerns. Many refer to remarks that have no place in a professional organization, such as “deliberate misinformation,” “personal attacks,” “unwelcome sexual attention,” and so on. Others, though, could be used to discourage or punish unpopular ideas.

One example is “disingenuously expressing concern in order to undermine or derail a discussion; also known as concern trolling.” When I expressed concerns about the broadness of some of the criteria on Mastodon, I was accused of “concern trolling,” thus confirming my point.

Another is “asking numerous questions about basic concepts in an attempt to derail discussion, to stifle participation, or to provoke a critical response in order to appear a victim.” Real attempts to derail discussion or stifle participation are a problem, but someone seeking clarification, especially on a point which everyone else assumes is clear but may not be, could be removed from a discussion by a hostile moderator. Similarly for “overwhelming a debate with many weak arguments”; how many arguments are “many,” and who decides whether they’re “weak”?

The document refers to these behaviors by weird jargon terms like “sealioning” and “gish galloping.” That creates a sense, whether it’s true or not, that there’s a secret meaning behind the words which only the initiated are allowed to know. If you were accused of “alpaca rolling” (a term I just made up), wouldn’t you feel at a disadvantage?

Some people think such rules are necessary because the alternative, according to a reply I got, is to “cede the space” to troublemakers. Here we get to the heart of the issue, the conflict of worldviews.

In one view, limitations on discussion should be minimal and clearly defined. Let opposing ideas face it out, and the best ones will win in the long run. Restrictions will work in favor of the status quo and the people who hold the most power, limiting other people’s ability to question and innovate.

The opposing view holds that wide-open discussions will give people too many opportunities to promote bad ideas and generally cause trouble. It will scare participants away and slow down progress. The rules should give moderators all the flexibility they need to handle any problem.

This isn’t a legal or First Amendment issue. We’re talking about the rules private organizations set for themselves and the people who participate in their activities. The degree and nature of appropriate restrictions depend on the organization and activity. I wouldn’t expect a Catholic church to give me time during a service to argue for atheism. Neither would a W3C forum, for that matter; it wouldn’t be relevant.

However, if people don’t value open discussion in general, it isn’t likely to survive as a legal value. The United States, in spite of the First Amendment, has had periods of intense censorship. The Constitution isn’t self-enforcing; society retains freedoms only as long as it values them.

So let’s look at why people fear discussion that is too open and try to answer their concerns.

One point is that there are real, undeniable problems. Filk singing groups that I’m involved with have to be careful not to distribute their links too publicly, because of “Zoom bombers” who enter meetings solely to disrupt them. Few people want totally unmoderated discussions. The issue is whether to have a minimum of rules or a lot to cover all situations, and whether to have clear boundaries or broad discretion in enforcement. The right point on the continuum depends on the purpose. But some people consider it better to be open to all views at the risk of some chaos, while others fear loose reins will lead to a breakdown of civilized standards.

What’s the reason for so much fear? A large part of it is the mistaken assumptions and bad habits of the people who are afraid.

Many people today don’t know how to handle disagreement and are poor listeners. They respond with insults and gratuitous accusations. To their surprise, this doesn’t persuade the people who disagree. It can provoke hostile responses, confirming the belief that “those people” aren’t reasonable. This leads to thinking that broad, stretchable rules are necessary to keep control.

They see the world in dualistic terms. “We” are on the side of right. Anyone who disagrees with us is bad and must be speaking in bad faith. Understanding such people is a waste of time. Figuring out what will change their minds is a concession. The only question is how to keep them out.

Some people have less sincere motives. The people in charge of a group can manipulate any set of rules for their advantage, but when the rules are clear and limited, they have less scope, and it’s easier to catch them at their schemes. Broad and vague rules let them control the discussion and exclude their opponents. This may not seem like a problem when you think reasonable people are in charge, but ones whom you don’t like or trust can work their way into positions where they can exploit vague, broad rules.

There’s a common tendency to assume that what’s popular is right. Sometimes the unpopular person has a point. Everyone may assume something is reasonable because “we’ve always done it that way,” but the lone dissenter will sometimes point out a serious problem. They may have to get a little obnoxious to call attention to their point. If you dismiss it as alpaca rolling, you may complacently perpetuate a bad situation. Isn’t it worth some risk of discomfort to give room to questions that need asking?

Tribalism has reached dangerous levels in our society. People fear and distrust anyone who doesn’t agree with them. It’s mutually reinforcing. Isn’t it possible that a bit more openness will clear the air rather than ceding the space?

It would be fair at this point to ask me what I’d suggest as rules. How would I set a framework for a focused but open discussion without opening it to alpaca rollers? It’s a complicated subject, but the following might be a good start:

• Stay on topic.
• Address issues, not people, unless the people are the issue.
• Have your say in turn and let others have their say.
• No threats, personal insults, or disruptive behavior.

Might it be worth a try?