Return to Answer

Did you omit any consideration of culture? Did you assume a general "Stack Overflow Community Culture" based on your understanding of what constitutes current consensus on community norms here? Did you use your own culture to frame your understanding of what offensive content is and is not?

Your mention of how passersby might interpret an old comment makes me think about culture in a different way. Previously, I understood the intersection of culture and offensive comments on Stack Overflow to relate to the participants themselves - that is, a comment was considered offensive if and only if it was offensive according to the culture of the commentator and/or the intended recipient of the comment. If we allow anyone from any culture to interpret for themselves whether to interpret any comment as offensive, I fear that could lead to a lack of standards. Maybe you and I communicate just fine, but then someone comes along a year later who comes from a culture in which failing to invoke a deity before every comment is considered super-highly offensive, they flag both of us, and boom, we are banned for failing to consider this third party. Can we even be sensitive to all cultures at the same time? Can we be the Culture Police for everyone in the world? The only real solution I see is to have a single site standard, but then that feeds right back in to the idea that Stack Overflow might just have to be culturally insensitive to some people. Can we live with that?

• Did you omit any consideration of culture?
• Did you assume a general "Stack Overflow Community Culture" based on your understanding of what constitutes current consensus on community norms here?
• Did you use your own culture to frame your understanding of what offensive content is and is not?

Your mention of how passersby might interpret an old comment makes me think about culture in a different way. Previously, I understood the intersection of culture and offensive comments on Stack Overflow to relate to the participants themselves - that is, a comment was considered offensive if and only if it was offensive according to the culture of the commentator and/or the intended recipient of the comment. If we allow anyone from any culture to interpret for themselves whether to interpret any comment as offensive, I fear that could lead to a lack of standards. Maybe you and I communicate just fine, but then someone comes along a year later who comes from a culture in which failing to invoke a deity before every comment is considered super-highly offensive, they flag both of us, and boom, we are banned for failing to consider this third party.

• Can we even be sensitive to all cultures at the same time?
• Can we be the Culture Police for everyone in the world?
• Are we to standardize on a single "site culture" with corresponding site-specific social mores and to require everyone to conform to such rules as a condition of participation?

The only real solution I see is to have a single site standard, but then that feeds right back in to the idea that Stack Overflow might just have to be culturally insensitive to some people. Can we live with that?

Has culture been considered in any way as part of this research? In sociolinguistics, offensiveness is not an inherent property of a comment that can be calculated from analysis of vocabulary and grammar, but something that must be understood in the cultural context in which it was uttered. For example, in some Australian Aboriginal cultures, referring to dead relatives by name is per se considered highly offensive. If the majority of Stack Overflow participants were from such cultures, it is highly likely that "refers to dead relative by name" would be a valid reason to flag or even a specific named flag or suspension reason ("This account is temporarily suspended for referring to the dead by name"). It isn't, so what gives? Do we want to stick a finger in visitors' faces, telling them, "Declined - We know your deceased father invented that famous algorithm, but we aren't going to stop people from calling it the Roger Smith Machine! Stop flagging!"? Historically, I would have understood such an adjudication to revolve around intent or knowledge - e.g. when Mary posted a comment suggesting "Did you try the Roger Smith Machine?", did she know that his son found seeing his father's name online highly offensive and is there any indication that she specifically wanted him to suffer additional distress? The article itself mentions that "circumstance or intent" no longer matters.

Did you omit any consideration of culture? Did you assume a general "Stack Overflow Community Culture" based on your understanding of what constitutes current consensus on community norms here? Did you use your own culture to frame your understanding of what offensive content is and is not?

As another example, cultures have a great deal of variance in how appropriate it is to point out an error made by someone else. In some cultures (E.g. Japanese), one must make only vague hints lest one be accused of insensitivity (e.g. "when one programs, one might look out for memory leaks...."), while in others (e.g. Israeli or Scottish), one may generally point out the error explicitly and then launch into a tirade of "friendly" insults ("you forgot to unallocate that pointer, numbskull"). Which culture prevails in a dispute as to whether a comment is offensive?

Your mention of how passersby might interpret an old comment makes me think about culture in a different way. Previously, I understood the intersection of culture and offensive comments on Stack Overflow to relate to the participants themselves - that is, a comment was considered offensive if and only if it was offensive according to the culture of the commentator and/or the intended recipient of the comment. If we allow anyone from any culture to interpret for themselves whether to interpret any comment as offensive, I fear that could lead to a lack of standards. Maybe you and I communicate just fine, but then someone comes along a year later who comes from a culture in which failing to invoke a deity before every comment is considered super-highly offensive, they flag both of us, and boom, we are banned for failing to consider this third party. Can we even be sensitive to all cultures at the same time? Can we be the Culture Police for everyone in the world? The only real solution I see is to have a single site standard, but then that feeds right back in to the idea that Stack Overflow might just have to be culturally insensitive to some people. Can we live with that?

Has culture been considered in any way as part of this research? In sociolinguistics, offensiveness is not an inherent property of a comment that can be calculated from analysis of vocabulary and grammar, but something that must be understood in the cultural context in which it was uttered.

As an example, in some Australian Aboriginal cultures, referring to dead relatives by name is per se considered highly offensive. If the majority of Stack Overflow participants were from such cultures, it is highly likely that "refers to dead relative by name" would be a valid reason to flag or even a specific named flag or suspension reason ("This account is temporarily suspended for referring to the dead by name"). It isn't, so what gives? Do we want to stick a finger in visitors' faces, telling them,

Declined - We know your deceased father invented that famous algorithm, but we aren't going to stop people from calling it the Roger Smith Machine! We don't follow that culture here and don't recognize its rules on offensiveness! Stop flagging!

Historically, I would have understood an adjudication related to culture-bound rules to revolve around intent or knowledge - e.g. when Mary posted a comment suggesting "Did you try the Roger Smith Machine?", did she know that his son found seeing his father's name online highly offensive and is there any indication that she specifically wanted him to suffer additional distress? The article itself mentions that "circumstance or intent" no longer matters.

Did you omit any consideration of culture? Did you assume a general "Stack Overflow Community Culture" based on your understanding of what constitutes current consensus on community norms here? Did you use your own culture to frame your understanding of what offensive content is and is not?

As another example, cultures have a great deal of variance in how appropriate it is to point out an error made by someone else. In some cultures (E.g. Japanese), one must make only vague hints lest one be accused of insensitivity (e.g. "when one programs, one might look out for memory leaks...."), while in others (e.g. Israeli or Scottish), one may generally point out the error explicitly and then launch into a tirade of "friendly" insults ("you forgot to unallocate that pointer, numbskull"). Which culture prevails in a dispute as to whether a comment is offensive?

Your mention of how passersby might interpret an old comment makes me think about culture in a different way. Previously, I understood the intersection of culture and offensive comments on Stack Overflow to relate to the participants themselves - that is, a comment was considered offensive if and only if it was offensive according to the culture of the commentator and/or the intended recipient of the comment. If we allow anyone from any culture to interpret for themselves whether to interpret any comment as offensive, I fear that could lead to a lack of standards. Maybe you and I communicate just fine, but then someone comes along a year later who comes from a culture in which failing to invoke a deity before every comment is considered super-highly offensive, they flag both of us, and boom, we are banned for failing to consider this third party. Can we even be sensitive to all cultures at the same time? Can we be the Culture Police for everyone in the world? The only real solution I see is to have a single site standard, but then that feeds right back in to the idea that Stack Overflow might just have to be culturally insensitive to some people. Can we live with that?

Has culture been considered in any way as part of this research? In sociolinguistics, offensiveness is not an inherent property of a comment that can be calculated from analysis of vocabulary and grammar, but something that must be understood in the cultural context in which it was uttered. For example, in some Australian Aboriginal cultures, referring to dead relatives by name is per se considered highly offensive. If the majority of Stack Overflow participants were from such cultures, it is highly likely that "refers to dead relative by name" would be a valid reason to flag or even a specific named flag or suspension reason ("This account is temporarily suspended for referring to the dead by name"). It isn't, so what gives? Do we want to stick a finger in visitors' faces, telling them, "Declined - We know your deceased father invented that famous algorithm, but we aren't going to stop people from calling it the Roger Smith Machine! Stop flagging!"? Historically, I would have understood such an adjudication to revolve around intent or knowledge - e.g. when Mary posted a comment suggesting "Did you try the Roger Smith Machine?", did she know that his son found seeing his father's name online highly offensive and is there any indication that she specifically wanted him to suffer additional distress? The article itself mentions that "circumstance or intent" no longer matters.

Did you omit any consideration of culture? Did you assume a general "Stack Overflow Community Culture" based on your understanding of what constitutes current consensus on community norms here? Did you use your own culture to define what constitutes offensive speech?

As a practical example, cultures have a great deal of variance in how appropriate it is to point out an error made by someone else. In some cultures (E.g. Japanese), one must make only vague hints lest one be accused of insensitivity (e.g. "when one programs, one might look out for memory leaks...."), while in others (e.g. Israeli), one may generally point out the error explicitly and then launch into a tirade of "friendly" insults ("you forgot to unallocate that pointer, numbskull"). Which culture prevails in a dispute as to whether a comment is offensive?

Your mention of how passersby might interpret an old comment makes me think about culture in a different way. Previously, I understood the intersection of culture and offensive comments on Stack Overflow to relate to the participants themselves - that is, a comment was considered offensive if and only if it was offensive according to the culture of the commentator and/or the intended recipient of the comment. If we allow anyone from any culture to interpret for themselves whether to interpret any comment as offensive, I fear that could lead to a lack of standards. Maybe you and I communicate just fine, but then someone comes along a year later who comes from a culture in which failing to invoke a deity before every comment is considered super-highly offensive, they flag both of us, and boom, we are banned for failing to consider this third party. Can we even be sensitive to all cultures at the same time? Can we be the Culture Police for everyone in the world? The only real solution I see is to have a single site standard, but then that feeds right back in to the idea that Stack Overflow might just have to be culturally insensitive to some people. Can we live with that?

Has culture been considered in any way as part of this research? In sociolinguistics, offensiveness is not an inherent property of a comment that can be calculated from analysis of vocabulary and grammar, but something that must be understood in the cultural context in which it was uttered. For example, in some Australian Aboriginal cultures, referring to dead relatives by name is per se considered highly offensive. If the majority of Stack Overflow participants were from such cultures, it is highly likely that "refers to dead relative by name" would be a valid reason to flag or even a specific named flag or suspension reason ("This account is temporarily suspended for referring to the dead by name"). It isn't, so what gives? Do we want to stick a finger in visitors' faces, telling them, "Declined - We know your deceased father invented that famous algorithm, but we aren't going to stop people from calling it the Roger Smith Machine! Stop flagging!"? Historically, I would have understood such an adjudication to revolve around intent or knowledge - e.g. when Mary posted a comment suggesting "Did you try the Roger Smith Machine?", did she know that his son found seeing his father's name online highly offensive and is there any indication that she specifically wanted him to suffer additional distress? The article itself mentions that "circumstance or intent" no longer matters.

Did you omit any consideration of culture? Did you assume a general "Stack Overflow Community Culture" based on your understanding of what constitutes current consensus on community norms here? Did you use your own culture to frame your understanding of what offensive content is and is not?

As another example, cultures have a great deal of variance in how appropriate it is to point out an error made by someone else. In some cultures (E.g. Japanese), one must make only vague hints lest one be accused of insensitivity (e.g. "when one programs, one might look out for memory leaks...."), while in others (e.g. Israeli or Scottish), one may generally point out the error explicitly and then launch into a tirade of "friendly" insults ("you forgot to unallocate that pointer, numbskull"). Which culture prevails in a dispute as to whether a comment is offensive?

Your mention of how passersby might interpret an old comment makes me think about culture in a different way. Previously, I understood the intersection of culture and offensive comments on Stack Overflow to relate to the participants themselves - that is, a comment was considered offensive if and only if it was offensive according to the culture of the commentator and/or the intended recipient of the comment. If we allow anyone from any culture to interpret for themselves whether to interpret any comment as offensive, I fear that could lead to a lack of standards. Maybe you and I communicate just fine, but then someone comes along a year later who comes from a culture in which failing to invoke a deity before every comment is considered super-highly offensive, they flag both of us, and boom, we are banned for failing to consider this third party. Can we even be sensitive to all cultures at the same time? Can we be the Culture Police for everyone in the world? The only real solution I see is to have a single site standard, but then that feeds right back in to the idea that Stack Overflow might just have to be culturally insensitive to some people. Can we live with that?