Time to back up, export, and leave if you're on mstdn.cahttps://ottawa.place/@stephanie/116267088513251309
-
I hate to be "That Guy" but I would remind everyone that these are allegations in the form of a statement of claim, not a finding of fact in a court of law.
As far as I'm aware we do have a presumption of innocence in Canada.
Obviously the allegation is disturbing, but I will withhold my condemnation and won't be moving instances until such time as a finding of fact is made (or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims).
As for "he's hosting it at home" as some kind of evidence of malice, there was a deliberate and public effort to get mstdn.ca off of "the cloud" and onto Canadian sovereign servers, so I feel like this is slandering someone with their good intentions.
I note, this is not a defence of his alleged actions, merely a reminder of our professed values.
Are you his jailor?
I'm so tired of people pretending that "guilty in a court of law" is the only way we're allowed to have opinions about people's wrongdoing. Courts make findings about the guilt of someone in the eyes of the state justice system. I.e., the state and it's ability to imprison you is the ONLY entity that is bound to a court judgement.
So I'll say it clearly, it doesn't matter that a court hasn't made a finding yet, yes you're still allowed to have an opinion about someone's behaviour and have consequences for that.
To claim otherwise is nothing more than using a false claim (that ONLY a court can pass judgement) as justification for not having an opinion.
-
@angela_underscore @mayintoronto
no I was just daft
@the5thColumnist @mayintoronto
Email dated at 0006h Eastern time, yesterday’s 2206h in Edmonton announced:
Mastodon Canada:
State of the Instance Spring 2026
PostponementWe are postponing our Spring 2026 State of the Instance scheduled for tomorrow.
A new date and time will be provided soon.
-
Are you his jailor?
I'm so tired of people pretending that "guilty in a court of law" is the only way we're allowed to have opinions about people's wrongdoing. Courts make findings about the guilt of someone in the eyes of the state justice system. I.e., the state and it's ability to imprison you is the ONLY entity that is bound to a court judgement.
So I'll say it clearly, it doesn't matter that a court hasn't made a finding yet, yes you're still allowed to have an opinion about someone's behaviour and have consequences for that.
To claim otherwise is nothing more than using a false claim (that ONLY a court can pass judgement) as justification for not having an opinion.
The civil courts are a process (there hasn't been a criminal charge laid in the matter so let's set that aside for now).
The process is as follows:
The plaintiff files and serves a Statement of Claim, in other words The Allegation.
After that, the defendant files a Statement of Defense and/or a Counter Claim.
That second step hasn't happened yet.
Even if we accept your premise that it doesn't matter what the courts decide, don't you think it's fair to at least hear the other side of the story?
-
The civil courts are a process (there hasn't been a criminal charge laid in the matter so let's set that aside for now).
The process is as follows:
The plaintiff files and serves a Statement of Claim, in other words The Allegation.
After that, the defendant files a Statement of Defense and/or a Counter Claim.
That second step hasn't happened yet.
Even if we accept your premise that it doesn't matter what the courts decide, don't you think it's fair to at least hear the other side of the story?
Fair, yes, required, no. But it's entirely beside the point. If you seek to hold an opinion, (even if that opinion is "we should wait to decide") justifying that opinion by "the courts haven't decided", you are using a logical fallacy.
"I want to hear both sides of the argument" is a reasonable statement.
"The courts haven't adjudicated it so I am not allowed to have an opinion" isn't.
I recognize that you did add "(or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims)" which is better than most people do, but it was still added as an aside, rather than the main point. You explicitly said you withhold your condemnation or moving instances until a finding of fact is made.
Frankly, I will admit that you're getting from me a lot of my frustration for frequently hearing this opinion regarding much worse and far clearer allegations, so maybe I'm a bit more frustrated by this, than is justified by the actual situation, but the fundamental point remains, this is a common logical fallacy that almost nobody recognizes.
-
Fair, yes, required, no. But it's entirely beside the point. If you seek to hold an opinion, (even if that opinion is "we should wait to decide") justifying that opinion by "the courts haven't decided", you are using a logical fallacy.
"I want to hear both sides of the argument" is a reasonable statement.
"The courts haven't adjudicated it so I am not allowed to have an opinion" isn't.
I recognize that you did add "(or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims)" which is better than most people do, but it was still added as an aside, rather than the main point. You explicitly said you withhold your condemnation or moving instances until a finding of fact is made.
Frankly, I will admit that you're getting from me a lot of my frustration for frequently hearing this opinion regarding much worse and far clearer allegations, so maybe I'm a bit more frustrated by this, than is justified by the actual situation, but the fundamental point remains, this is a common logical fallacy that almost nobody recognizes.
I think what we're doing right now is hashing out the meaning and/or emphasis of a parenthetical more then discussing the main point.
A parenthetical is a word, phrase, or clause inserted into a sentence to add non-essential information, clarification, or afterthoughts without altering the sentence’s basic meaning.
Perhaps you're correct that I should have put more emphasis on that point by not making it a parenthetical, but especially given your frank admission, I think we're mostly splitting hairs.
I agree with your overall premise that, yes, we don't *need* to wait until a court has made a decision to, ourselves, make a judgment.
My ultimate point with this situation, and I believe you'd agree with me given your frank admissions, is simply that we shouldn't rush to judgment based merely on an accusation, but that we should hold our judgment until we at least hear both sides of the story.
-
I hate to be "That Guy" but I would remind everyone that these are allegations in the form of a statement of claim, not a finding of fact in a court of law.
As far as I'm aware we do have a presumption of innocence in Canada.
Obviously the allegation is disturbing, but I will withhold my condemnation and won't be moving instances until such time as a finding of fact is made (or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims).
As for "he's hosting it at home" as some kind of evidence of malice, there was a deliberate and public effort to get mstdn.ca off of "the cloud" and onto Canadian sovereign servers, so I feel like this is slandering someone with their good intentions.
I note, this is not a defence of his alleged actions, merely a reminder of our professed values.
@evdelen @mayintoronto @javensbukan @PhoenixSerenity @danbrotherston My opinion is that he is a POS, pending further investigation. And if we truly want Mastodon to be a better community we should listen to people when they call out bad actors.
-
L limebar@mastodon.social shared this topic
-
@evdelen @mayintoronto @javensbukan @PhoenixSerenity @danbrotherston My opinion is that he is a POS, pending further investigation. And if we truly want Mastodon to be a better community we should listen to people when they call out bad actors.
@retrotechshop @mayintoronto @javensbukan @PhoenixSerenity @danbrotherston
If all it takes is for someone to be labelled "a bad actor" is a mere allegation...And without yet even having made a statement in their defense...
As a former professional political operative, particularly as one who worked on the #DavidSoknacki campaign, the ability for progressives to eat their own and spit them out: the purity tests, the litmus tests, and the outright hostility if anyone should fail them, and the speed and intensity withwhich that hostility is applied...
People are messy!
Life is messy!
Ideally we'd make every decision through consensus but sometimes compromise is needed!
Perfection is the enemy of the good enough!
-
I hate to be "That Guy" but I would remind everyone that these are allegations in the form of a statement of claim, not a finding of fact in a court of law.
As far as I'm aware we do have a presumption of innocence in Canada.
Obviously the allegation is disturbing, but I will withhold my condemnation and won't be moving instances until such time as a finding of fact is made (or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims).
As for "he's hosting it at home" as some kind of evidence of malice, there was a deliberate and public effort to get mstdn.ca off of "the cloud" and onto Canadian sovereign servers, so I feel like this is slandering someone with their good intentions.
I note, this is not a defence of his alleged actions, merely a reminder of our professed values.
@evdelen @mayintoronto That presumption of innocence is a habit of *the courts* *in the courtroom* - not of the general public (who are allowed to use other heuristics) in public.
Were this not so, jurors would never be challenged or questioned. Hell, prosecutors wouldn't be allowed to bring cases.
-
@evdelen @mayintoronto That presumption of innocence is a habit of *the courts* *in the courtroom* - not of the general public (who are allowed to use other heuristics) in public.
Were this not so, jurors would never be challenged or questioned. Hell, prosecutors wouldn't be allowed to bring cases.
@harmoniousanger @mayintoronto
In fact, the presumption of innocence only applies to criminal matters, as of this moment this is only a civil matter.
Notwithstanding, my point was that there has only been an allegation made, and there hasn't even been a statement of defence yet.
Given the news dropped on a Friday, and unless one is very rich, one would be unlikely to get a meeting with a lawyer until Monday at the earliest, we're still well within the territory of a reasonable time frame for a response, including cancelling the State of the Instance (I kind of figured that'd happen).
I'm not defending any position, I'm merely drawing attention to the process.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@jerome @mayintoronto @javensbukan
You have a point there, and we have the good fortune of a forum being available to answer some of our questions / make some decisions around these issues, specifically the State of the Instance meet up tomorrow.
Personally, if there is a call for volunteers for replicating and distributing the infrastructure I believe I have the skills and resources to volunteer: a fibre connection, backup power, some of the technical skills...
And, institutionally, I agree that it might be time to have a discussion around setting up the mstdn.ca organization as a not-for-profit entity with a volunteer board and some of the safeguards I mentioned before, like 3 signature expenditures.
This is part of the evolution of such communities!
I look forward to the discussion tomorrow!
@evdelen @jerome @mayintoronto @javensbukan I'm really liking this idea of repair over abandonment, perhaps with a non-profit setup. Too bad the state of the instance was cancelled.
