Profile cover photo
Profile photo
K Robert

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Just spamming this to a few places, apologies if you see it multiple times in your feeds.

I've landed in Melbourne and I'm staying with a friend and starting to settle in. There's lots of paperwork to re-establish myself (phone, bank, other bank, Medicare... ugh, so much.) And then there's been the beginning of househunting and meeting up with friends I haven't seen in years. Even after recovering from the jetlag, I've been pretty busy and stressed and I've got some writing deadlines this week as well, so I'm a bit fried. I'm expecting this state of friedness to continue for at least a week, and most likely for the rest of the month.

So, this is just a post to say, yes, I'm in Melbourne now, and I'm sorry if I don't have time to chat and hang out online. I really appreciate everyone's thoughtfulness in pinging me to ask if I'm here and if I'm settled, but I'm getting a little flooded, so hopefully this will serve as an answer to many of you.

Incidentally, if you'd like to meet up, the best way is to email me and suggest a specific activity and a couple of times that work for you. I'll get back to you and let you know if any of those times work, and put it in my calendar. Unfortunately, "Hey, let's catch up sometime!" will probably fall through the cracks.

[Note: still have G+ notifications turned off, so if you have something you really want me to see, email is better.]
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Göteborgs sjömuseet would like to remind you that (although illegal in the 1700s) women often dressed up as men anyhow and went to sea.

The intro to the exhibit has a poster challenging the visitor to examine their cultural assumptions about gender and the seafaring life. The poster has a mirror. :)
Add a comment...

FYI, I have turned off email notifications for G+ until I'm better settled. Please consider any threads on my posts to be unmoderated for the time being.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Update on the linking-of-multiple-personae thing from the other week ( ...

+Yonatan Zunger, who is the senior tech guy on G+, has been looking into what occurred, and I've been back and forth with him and sent him a bunch of info. He was kind enough to let me know the final diagnosis and says he'll be posting his own write-up of it in due course. Massive props to him for his hard work and friendly communications over the last week or so.

Short version: GMail did connect my two accounts in a way that was opaque and surprising, and expose that connection to my friends, but it wasn't via "backup email address".

Slightly longer version: It turns out that the connection was triggered by me cancelling a Google Apps For Your Domain account and disconnecting my primary personal email address (skud@mydomain) from it, which somehow got intertangled in the creation of my new account and resulted in my primary address being set as an "alternate" on my new account. In other words, the connection wasn't via the "backup email address" but via the GAFYD cancellation process, but the result was the same: I thought I was signing up for a pristine new GMail account, but it was connected with my other email addresses, and that connection was exposed to people who shouldn't have known about it.

The good news: the likelihood of this affecting other people is lower than if it were the backup email address, as it should only affect people who wind up in the rather strange state I was in wrt cancelling a GAFYD account at the same time they're creating a new one. OTOH, that doesn't seem like such a stretch -- it's exactly the sort of thing people might do around the same time.

Please disseminate the above, but don't expect me to respond -- I've just landed in .au and have limited net access and no phone and UGH JUST DON'T ASK what sort of day I've had trying to get a phone but at least it's kept me awake til 7pm, and I can crash soon.
Add a comment...

Something about the "dogs" analogy bugs me. And by "bugs" I mean "deeply offends".

Eric Schmidt said: "The Internet would be better if we had an accurate notion that you were a real person as opposed to a dog, or a fake person."

Let's think about what's going on here. Yes, we all know about the old cartoon, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." But it's not coincidental that Eric is choosing to use that particular metaphor to talk about people who use pseudonyms. If the cartoon had said, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Nobel Prize winner" (which is equally true), Eric wouldn't be saying, "The Internet would be better if we had an accurate notion that you're a real person as opposed to a Nobel Prize winner."

He's specifically choosing to use a metaphor that dehumanizes pseudonym users, and equates them with animals, as beings that most people see as less than human.

Dehumanizing those you disagree with has a long and inglorious history. I invite you to consider where you've heard similar language in the past.

People who use nicknames, handles, and pseudonyms aren't dogs. We're people. Actual human beings, sentient and literate and with beliefs and relationships and communities. Maybe Eric Schmidt doesn't like the kind of people we are, but at least he could have the honesty to say so: "The Internet would be better if we had an accurate notion that you were the sort of person Google approves of."

I don't have time to closely moderate a discussion on this subject (I'm in the middle of an international move), so I'm going to turn comments off and invite you to reshare and discuss on your own streams, if you want.
Commenting is disabled for this post.

Post has shared content
As +Danny O'Brien just aptly pointed out, the man-in-the-middle attack discovered today (see story below) and perpetrated against Iranian users of Google services was discovered by a pseudonymous user. But please, Eric Schmidt, you know best. After all, that pseudonymous Iranian could be anyone
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Woah, I just found out that +Anas Maarawi the Syrian tech blogger, has been released from jail after he +1'd a post I made about him and started following me. He was one of the first to join Google+, and I wondered at the time whether he was the first to be arrested for online freedom of speech.

Sad how this comes just after Eric Schmidt, in answering a question about G+'s real names policy, had apparently implied that Syrians and Iranians who are at risk simply shouldn't use Google+. Of course, Anas is one of the biggest names in the Arab Android community too, as the host of .

Also, today, I note that an (apparently) Iranian Google Chrome user warned Google that someone had obtained fake certificates, and was using them to break Google's secure connections in Iran. That's a major security issue for Google users worldwide -- and it was reported by a pseudonymous Iranian user, Alibo:

I guess sometimes at-risk Iranians and Syrians have their uses for Google, and sometimes they just represent ticklish edge cases that the company would rather not deal with.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Excellent post on the "tone argument" in the context of #nymwars. Heads up +Tim O'Reilly in particular... I know you probably don't want to read this, but you should.

Comments on original please.
Well, I said I had a post coming about the Nymwars issue and the tone argument. So here we go.

So when is complaining about a policy that disproportionately affects marginalized people and creates a homogenized echo chamber for privileged people, exactly like hanging black people as a form of guerrilla pseudo-justice in order to maintain a system of white dominance and privilege?

When you’re Google, apparently!

Tim O’Reilly has complained that those arguing against G+’s “real names policy” (which is more accurately described as a “WASP names policy,” since you can pick any fake name you like as long as it follows enough Western naming conventions to fly under their radar) is acting like a “lynch mob.”

Elsewhere, pro-naming-policy people have beenseen complaining about the “rudeness” or “yelling” of anti-naming-policy,pro-pseudonym people. I will readily admit that it’s entirely possible that there have been private emails sent that I have no knowledge of, or even that there have been comments exchanged which I haven’t seen. But I have to say that honestly, I’ve yet to spot a single comment by a pro-nym person that approaches the level of rudeness I’ve seen from the pro-policy people, who have used terms like “idiots” and “assholes” to describe pro-nym people. I've seen condescending remarks about "those kinds of people" who can just "go elsewhere" unless they're "too stupid to realize that if they don't feel safe they shouldn't be on the Internet at all," and anyway no one wants to hear them post about their cats and their breakfast and their rape experiences, amiriteguys?

What I have seen is a lot of pro-nym people reference posts like the excellent “Who is harmed by a real names policy?” wikipage:
which chronicles the harm to vulnerable groups like people of color, GLBTQ people, victims of rape/abuse/stalking, women, people with disabilities or health problems, religious minorities, government protesters, and others. I’ve seen them talk about how the impacts of such a policy intersect with institutional racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other discriminatory forces. I’ve seen them raise the question of privilege with pro-policy people, and ask ,essentially, why the rest of the world should be forced to comply with a policy that is really only favorable to the privileged. I’ve seen them ask the pro-policy people to check their own privilege.

When the pro-policy folks started describing this as rude, aggressive, attacking behavior? I thought “wait, I’ve heard this argument before.”

When the term “lynch mob” was rolled out?

Well, this is my surprised face.

Because you don’t spend time talking about social justice on- and offline without running into what’s frequently called “the tone argument.”

Here is how the tone argument goes: “Why do you have to be so hostile and rude? How can you expect anyone to listen to you when you are so aggressive? If you wouldn’t shriek about [racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.] every time someone else opens their mouths, maybe people could listen to what you have to say. But it’s impossible to talk to you when you’re so angry. No wonder no one takes you seriously. You just beat people over the head with your position. As soon as anybody else says something that isn’t politically correct, you start lighting your torches and bonfires. Why can’t you just calmly state what your position is? Why can’t you just teach people about your ideas instead of screaming at them? Why do you always have to get so emotional and oversensitive and start lashing out at people? You have such a chip on your shoulder!”

Etc. etc. etc. – the words vary but the argument is the same: You are not playing nice, and I do not have to take you seriously if you don’t meet my standard of niceness.

Here is how to construct an effective tone argument:
1) Critique the messenger, not the message.
2) Use violent imagery to characterize the messenger.
3) Position yourself as the victim of the messenger.
4) State that naturally, you would of course consider the message if it were delivered in some other fashion, because of course you are a reasonable person.
5) Leave the messenger to decide whether or not to attempt to guess,through trial and error, what fashion of comment it is that you would be open to listening to, and make repeated attempts to provide their message in a way that fits your standards of communication.
6) Any time the messenger attempts to re-characterize their message in a way you might find acceptable, begin again at item #1.
7) Corollary: if you have accidentally left yourself vulnerable by being too explicit about identifying the conditions under which you would theoretically pay attention to the message, and the messenger should actually achieve a message that fulfills those conditions, explain that you still cannot possibly listen to the message because you are still coping with having been previously victimized by the messenger in earlier exchanges.
8) Important: Never acknowledge any legitimate feelings or experiences that the messenger might have related to the situation in question. Particularly critical: never acknowledge any way in which you might personally benefit from the status quo, or the way in which refusing to engage with the message perpetuates said status quo.

Here’s the thing about the tone argument though: It is a false dilemma. It is a total derail (see also


At all.


In any context.

Using any words.

There is no “tone” that makes the invoking of racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, class privilege, etc. acceptable, palatable, and fair game in the minds of many people who benefit from these dynamics.

You don’t have to dig very far to find conversations about the futility of trying to discuss dynamics of privilege if doing so is prima facie evidence of being unfair, hostile, angry, violent,abusive, etc. This most often, in conversations I encounter, comes up around racism, because apparently associating someone’s beliefs or actions with outcomes that support a racist system of oppression is pretty much the worst thing anyone can do in the United States today. (Also, everyone knows that people of color are violent and dangerous, and so anything they might have to say about race is inherently one step away from ballooning into a violent mob screaming “Kill Whitey!”)

I mean, we all know that it is much more important to reassure white people that they are not racist, than it is to talk about racism, right?

(This is how the Tea Party gets away with their racially polarizing rhetoric that constructs white people as the most salient victims of racism in the 21st century, and that uses "racist” as a label against the Left to punish people of color and white allies who talk about racism. Because noticing and commenting on racism is racist.)

But you know, the tone argument works in all kinds of contexts.


Sexism (add a side order of mansplaining for a concern troll combo, e.g. “you know, if you want to be taken seriously,here’s how you should really present yourself….”)

Basically, any situation in which a group of less privileged people makes critiques or observations of the dominant group ina way that threatens to upset the dominance of that group, to change the established order somehow, or to at least make the established order seem less virtuous, normal, and inevitable, is a situation in which the tone argument gets pulled out.

Of course, asserting your right to control the “tone” of a conversation (which is actually an assertion of your right to control the content of a conversation and keep it from veering onto topics that make you uncomfortable) is pretty much a perfect example of acting out of privilege, because it rests on the belief that you expect to have your preferences catered to, and that your feelings about difficult dialogues are more important than other people’s feelings about experiencing the effects of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and so on.

Congratulations, you have the privilege of politeness:
(even if you are doing things with your institutionalized power that are very, um, impolite, to put it mildly…)

And you know what you should do with privilege?


(Ending a post with a simple imperative sentence: Not a very nice tone! I know, right?)
Commenting is disabled for this post.

Post has shared content
Via +Reilly Hayes. A great post from +Jim Hines about the problems with asking people who are being hurt to be "calm and reasonable" when complaining about it.

I'd love +Tim O'Reilly to read this and consider it in light of his claims ( that those of us asking to be allowed to use our chosen names online, many of them for reasons of personal safety, are a "lynch mob".
+Jim Hines--who is a brilliant blogger to begin with--has posted what may be his best blog entry ever.

While it's specifically about the issue of homophobia and gay rights, it can also be applied across the board, to a greater or lesser extent.

Read it, think about it.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded