-3

I raised a number of flags on this comment:

What's with the weird threat to Stack Exchange buried in the middle of this answer?

to this answer. The latest being "harassment" flag. There is little doubt that it is, at the very least, harassment. It is a false accusation of a "threat". Accusing a volunteer poster, who is clearly well-meaning, of a "threat" because they mention that the law being discussed may also apply to SE? Mentioning that a law applies to any entity is never a "threat." It's a value-neutral opinion.

The comment is phrased in an intimidating fashion and it should not be viewed as an example of an acceptable discourse. I hope these types of comments are not the new normal on this site.

6

Because it isn't harassment

What constitutes harassment?

Our Code of Conduct applies everywhere on our sites.

Systematic and/or continued behaviors that afflict or demean someone in a way that would make a reasonable person fear for their safety or the safety of those around them constitute harassment. Following a user or a group of users, on or offline, to the point where they start feeling that it is not safe to post online or are in fear of their safety is harassment.

No harassment.

This includes, but isn’t limited to: bullying, intimidation, vulgar language, direct or indirect threats, sexually suggestive remarks, patterns of inappropriate social contact, and sustained disruptions of discussion.

It just isn't.

What I see

The comment reads:

What's with the weird threat to Stack Exchange buried in the middle of this answer?

This appears to be with respect to this in the OP:

The key provisions of this law are that standards for censorship (defined), deplatforming, and shadow banning must be described in detail and published, and must be applied uniformly to users. SE, take notice.

At this point, the commenter has identified this as a "weird threat" and sought clarification. Hyperbolic perhaps, as the OP is presumably not actually in a position to make credible threats against Stack Exchange - but not "bullying, intimidation, vulgar language, direct or indirect threats, sexually suggestive remarks, patterns of inappropriate social contact, and sustained disruptions of discussion."

The OP has confirmed that there is a threat to Stack Exchange, however, it's not a threat from the OP, they see the proposed Florida law as a threat to Stack Exchange's current model. They might be right.

There's no harassment in either direction here.

9
  • 2
    I won't speak for the user towards whom the comment was addressed, but if someone accused me of making threats, and did it in such a forward manner, I would certainly feel bullied.
    – grovkin
    May 14 at 5:05
  • @grovkin what counts as harassment is objectively measured - if you (or anyone else) happens to be particularly sensitive doesn't turn not harassment into harassment just because of how it makes you feeel.
    – Dale M Mod
    May 28 at 2:34
  • you've pretty much defined terms by stating their synonyms. And I didn't say I would feel "harassed". I said I would feel "bullied." You have listed bullying as an example of harassment. It's your standard.
    – grovkin
    May 28 at 2:55
  • @grovkin you feeling bullied doesn't mean you have been bullied. A person might, at the extreme end, have a personality disorder so that everything that everyone says to them is perceived as bullying while another person is completely indifferent to anything anyone says to them. Whether an act is bullying is inherent in the act, not the perception of the person at whom it is directed, or of any other person who might choose to regard it as being directed at them and its assessed using the reasonable person test. You've been here long enough to know what that is.
    – Dale M Mod
    May 28 at 3:01
  • bullying is not defined in the quote you posted. As I already stated, the definition of "harassment" mostly just states its synonyms. If you don't like the definition, your problem is not with the fact that I am using it, but with the definition itself. Using abrasive language, to falsely accuse someone, is a form of bullying as far as I am concerned. If you don't think so, I am perfectly open to hearing a definition which excludes it.
    – grovkin
    May 28 at 3:08
  • @grovkin I can see that "Using abrasive language, to falsely accuse someone, is a form of bullying" is potentially true. Indeed, for this discussion, I will concede it. However, that's not what happened in the post you link. "What's with the weird threat to Stack Exchange buried in the middle of this answer?" in reference to "SE, take notice." is NOT accusatory - it appears to be a genuine question. Neither does it use abrasive language - the commenter read it as a "weird threat" (rightly or wrongly) and sought clarification and the OP CONFIRMED it was a threat, albiet not from them.
    – Dale M Mod
    May 28 at 5:36
  • I think the author was generous by indulging the comment as a genuine curiosity. Whether or not calling "you may take note" language "a weird threat" rises to the level of a false accusation is probably a judgement call. Certainly, if it's just a curiosity, a less abrasive question could be posed, such as "why would this law apply to SE?" I hope you will also agree that calling it a "weird threat" is not on the mellow side of comments. If all the comments raise the temperature to the same level, the discussions will get more hostile fairly quickly.
    – grovkin
    May 29 at 3:38
  • @grovkin sure. If you want to make an argument that the comment breached the “be nice” rule you might have better luck. But hostility is not harassment.
    – Dale M Mod
    May 29 at 5:25
  • I think I raised the unfriendly-or-unkind flag first. And it was rejected. So I guess I agreed, at the time, that it was less in keeping with the "be nice" rule than with the "no harassment" rule.
    – grovkin
    May 29 at 9:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .