cellio | Stack Overflow Inc.: call for company action

Entry tags:

stack exchange

Stack Overflow Inc.: call for company action

I just posted the following on Meta.SE under the title "Stack Overflow is doing me ongoing harm; it's time to fix it!":

Over the last month, Stack Overflow Inc. has violated its own policies and precedents to cause egregious and unnecessary harm to me -- to my reputation (personal and professional), to my health, and to my safety. This harm is significant and ongoing. It is past time for the company to correct its errors, repair what can be repaired, and move toward a spirit of working with rather than against its users and volunteers.

Whereas:

The company removed me without due process or warning and ignored procedures it already had in place, which an executive admitted to, and did so in the midst of a discussion with a community manager to understand the new Code of Conduct (which was previously unclear); and
A representative of the company violated longstanding privacy policies by immediately (within seconds) announcing my firing to a large audience, denying me the standard privacy afforded to subjects of such discipline; and
A director, speaking for the company, posted on various resignation announcements (example) in a way that maligns my character and violates the Code of Conduct; and
Company representatives violated common corporate practice of not commenting to the media (now codified) by speaking with The Register to further malign my character, paint me as a bigot, and make unsubstantiated claims; and
A company representative made an official post on Meta accusing me of "repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM's repeated requests to change that behavior", a claim that has never been substantiated, and featured the post across the network where it was prominent for 77 hours; and
Representatives of the company including executives, a director, and the Community Management team have failed to respond to my repeated requests to be shown these alleged violations and warnings and, more broadly, my requests for discussion to find a mutually-agreeable resolution to the situation; and
Company claims of an urgent need to act before resolving the ongoing discussion, despite my having left the Teachers' Lounge nine days earlier and otherwise behaving normally across the network, have never been substantiated; and
The new reinstatement process is unacceptable in my case because my removal did not follow the paired removal process (or any process), the reinstatement process proceeds from a presumption of a legitimate guilty finding, and I cannot appeal charges that have never been communicated to me; and
The issue I asked about has now been confirmed to comply with the new CoC;

Therefore I call on Stack Overflow Inc. and its individual representatives to:

Retract all of the negative statements about me described above, publicize that retraction to all places where the original claims were made or are known to have spread, and to the best of its ability clear my name; and
Reverse the original decision, restoring me to my position without prejudice. The model here must be akin to declaring a mistrial, not akin to an application for early parole.

Stack Overflow Inc. is a private company and its representatives are free to treat users badly. They can ignore #2 if they do not value fairness, respectfulness, and diversity; that is their right. However, they must address #1, and given the many errors that got us here, they should address #2.

My patience is not infinite; the company has already dragged this out for nearly a month while harm continues to accrue. It is past time for a meaningful response. I remain available to discuss the matter. Please prioritize resolving this ongoing, painful, damaging situation in the very near future.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This.
Exactly.
Keep fighting for Truth and Justice.

They claim that some fuzzy gendering language is harmful.

Then they libel you in public and in speaking to journalist?

It was "Be Nice". SE destroyed all trust in their attempt to destroy you (and I don't think I am overstating things since it is defame, then go "no comment" letting you twist in the wind.

You remind me of my Mother. She had a career in the 1950's before even "equal pay" and was the smartest person in the room. I don't know how she tolerated it so long (but am glad a straw broke the camel's back so I'm here). So many stories I can't go into here.

I don't know your maritial status, but you are more valuable than rubys. Showing the fortitude, temperance, patience, in the cause of justice.

I'm non an employer but I would hire you in a minute - I don't even know what for, but someone so fierce in defense of the right can only be an asset.

Have you considered a crowdfunding site (maybe to do the legal part)? There are so few warrior spirits for the truth.

I am interested in the crowdfunding idea to help with legal costs. I don't want to personally organize it for two reasons:

1. "Fund me" can give off the wrong vibe compared to a third party doing it.

2. I am bad at this kind of administration.

If anybody reading this wants to organize something, please get in touch with me. Anonymous comments are screened so you can use one to leave me an email address, or you can email me or DM me on Twitter.

If someone starts a satisfactory crowdfunding campaign on your behalf, please let people know here. I'd be willing to provide support, but I'd have to know that the campaign exists and that you consider it legitimate.

Feel free to post this but this is more of a DM

You mentioned something in a comment on your post at SE that you would want any funding overage to go to charity - but specifically mentioned a "lavender" charity. I think you are trying to help but making the same error as the pronoun policy - first, it acts as an admission of guilt (I need to make repairations - watch the mob swarm on this), second, which "lavender" charity? Maybe something like this one: https://www.facebook.com/gaysguns ? I'd recommend something more neutral like a Children's hospital, or STEM scholarship. Third, even if not an admission, it has the condescending air of "oh, you poor lavender people, let me help".

If we weren't in a war of feelings and weaponized words the kind of charity would not be a problem either way. Instead it just causes people to assume some alterior motive behind the most reasonable act. Welcome to the culture wars.

The other thing is simple justice. If a Lavender moderator was fired in a similar unclear manner and then libeled, those who did it would have already lost their jobs. SE's actions speak far louder than any procedure document they can write. Your case is well beyond violating "Be Nice" and "Assume good intent". Your case is negative, but the flip side would be if there was a truly bigoted transphobic post they refused to remove for over a month with only some comments "we've contacted the person and hope to work on a solution" but it remains up. You remain removed and the libels unrecanted.

Every day that you don't get justice - have an apology, retraction, and reinstatement shows SE is engaging in irrational hatred with actual harm toward you and that is the essence of bigotry. It might be a "magnificent" (Augustine: "Pagan virtues are magnificent vices") bigotry, but it is still bigotry.

I was thinking that it would be good, and fitting, to find somebody who is actually helping the queer community, unlike Stack Overflow. And by "help" I mean somebody who's providing needed support services, which I think everyone could get behind. But I don't know who those players are yet, so I haven't done anything.

If I do that, then donations go either to legal fees or to help a vulnerable community -- Stack Overflow's choice. It seems like it could highlight one more aspect of their hypocrisy. The lavender folks being hurt by Stack Overflow are by and large not part of the problem (a few are but not most).

But it's all just an idea so far.

Your post on MSE has been only intermittently visible for the past hour. If I have the post open in my browser and refresh it, it does refresh correctly. But if I go to https://meta.stackexchange.com/ and refresh, sometimes it can't be seen at all in the list of questions. Then a minute later it may reappear, only to disappear again. I think someone is trying to hide it.

Monica,
How SE has been treating you has been appalling, to say the least.
I'm sure you know this already, but if you plan to sue, please be careful of what you put in writing, anywhere. That includes chat, messaging, even things you delete. All that stuff is fair game in litigation, and corporate lawyers are very good of twisting innocent phrases and taking them out of context.
Your latest post summed up your points perfectly. Nothing further needs to be said. You need to talk to a lawyer now.
Don't bother about getting your diamond back. SE no longer cares about the community. They're looking to sell the company before the tech bubble bursts.
Best of luck to you.

Yes, I assume they're logging every keystroke I make anywhere on their network.

Things like the Teachers' Lounge transcript (all of it, not just what was leaked to Reddit) and the private team posts are also fair game in litigation. There's some stuff in there that I'm pretty sure they don't want to make available.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu

Most of the problem - after seeing your totally rational exchange - seems to be that Gulliver ended up washing up on the Lavender Lilliput instead of Blefuscu.

Can we not agree to open our eggs however we wish?

I think it could and would have been resolved with respect and tolerance, except someone in power decided to destroy one side.

This is a "demand letter". A demand letter must set time limits. Without a time limit, as long as SE does not respond to this communication, you cannot say they have rejected the demands.

One of the difficulties with a demand letter is that the respondent can later attempt to claim that you said you would be satisfied with the demands in the letter. This can prevent you from asking for more. In order to counter this, you need to show that the letter was rejected.

In this case, you have demanded a retraction and a publication of the retraction. You have not demanded monetary compensation for current or future damages to your career. Should you eventually ask a court to order such compensation, SE could argue that it should merely satisfy the demands in this letter, which would still be on offer. You would be in the position of filing a lawsuit while in the midst of negotiations, which shows bad faith and vexatious litigation.

You must resubmit these demands to SE, but with a reasonable time limit -- say, "30 days from receipt of this letter" -- instead of the accommodating "in the very near future". Then send it via registered mail to SE corporate offices. (The 30 days would start from the date of the SE agent signature on the receipt.)

It's kind of a "pre" demand letter. I haven't delivered it directly into their hands with a paper trail; it's a public, open letter. An actual demand letter to follow would specify both time limits and financial damages and be properly served.

If they meet my demands to my satisfaction, I am willing to forego further demands. I'm giving them a chance to end this without more cost and damage. I hope they accept that offer.

So far I have been a pure reader at SE without an account -- most of my questions were already answered. In my eyes the actions of the company against you harmed their own reputation, I noticed almost no one supporting their decision. So I hope the harm to you can fade soon.

It worries me a lot that they seem to have harmed those people most that they claimed to welcome. How many people will read about this situation and just be confirmed in their perception that trans means trouble? In a time when parliaments pass toilet laws to make the life of trans people worse, it pains me to see that there are people who believe they are fighting the good fight by fighting not the real opponents but rather their former allies for only agreeing 99% with them.

I wish you the best! --David

Yes, this aspect of it is heart-breaking. Because of how they did things, the company created the public perception that "those fanatical trans people bullied SE into this bad change". No, that's not what happened. There might have been some fanatical individuals involved -- I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes -- but this change harmed the LGBTQ+ community on Stack Exchange. Not only does it not help with their real concerns, but it drew undeserved fire onto all of them. Good people are leaving in fear. (That's just the latest example I've seen; there are others.)

The company couldn't have done more harm to a community they said they wanted to support if they'd tried.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Stack Overflow Inc.: call for company action

GO!

Spiritual strength.

Re: Spiritual strength.

Re: Spiritual strength.

Crowdfunding, and who is the hater?

Re: Crowdfunding, and who is the hater?

no subject

Please be careful

Re: Please be careful

Eclipse of Reason.

no subject

no subject

View of an outsider

Re: View of an outsider