This reads like a prejudicial post, based on a biased interpretation of unclear events. Not what I would expect from an organization whose goal is to fight against prejudice.
The post only deals with ending association, and doesn't make any direct accusation against Github. As a feminist organization devoted to protecting women in the workplace from similar (but not necessarily identical) circumstances, it's only prudent to distance themselves at this point of time regardless of whether Github's actions were truly gender-biased.
"The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time."
Why? It doesn't follow from the description of the events. Have they spoken with someone at Github? Are they being pressured by their members or other people? Do they have evidence that GH is worse in those respects than other organizations they partner with? Is ending the partnership the best possible course of action both for their cause and for their members?
Surely one doesn't need to be pressured by third parties to make a judgment call on this situation? You must concede that there is some polarization in the debate over Github's reaction, with positive nods about the company's work environment and promptness, and some consternation over the legal posturing.
Again, Ada is simply saying they cannot continue association with Github. The statement you quoted explicitly states that there were several variables to consider, including their own image as a protector of women's rights (their charter is not to end ALL prejudice, it's specifically aimed at prejudice against women).
> "It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission."
This seems verifiably false since Github did in fact sponsor conferences, efforts and perks.
So one bad story, that the details aren't entirely clear on, that resulted in the ousting of a founder, means Github, despite going out of their way to put money on the table to support the cause, isn't worthy?
> It was shortly followed by a blog post from the resigning co-founder which included a clear threat of legal action against anyone who said he or his wife had engaged in gender-based harassment or discrimination.
That's a direct accusation, and a false one. The threat was against false accusations.
> The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time. ... We will not accept future sponsorships from or partnerships with GitHub unless the situation changes significantly. ... We are working hard to create a world in which women can participate in open source software, Wikipedia, and other areas of open technology and culture without harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. Sometimes this means refusing to partner with or accept sponsorship from specific people or organizations. It is also contrary to our principles to be silent when our existing sponsors and collaborators' actions consistently do not support our mission.
If legal action is taken, of course it will be on the grounds that the accusations are false. Whether the accusation is actually true or false, may not have any bearing on whether or not legal action is taken.
But the accused knows whether or not the accusations are true, and the claim is that legal action will be taken only if the accusations are false. This is pretty normal. False accusations, especially about serious crimes or misconduct, are usually taken very seriously.
> the claim is that legal action will be taken only if the accusations are false
If someone wants to deny an accusation that is true, they will claim that said accusation is false. Claiming that legal action will only be taken if the accusation is false doesn't matter. Take this hypothetical:
If the accusations against TPW are true, but he doesn't want
the world-at-large to believe him. He will present to the
world that the accusations are false. Claims that legal
action will only be taken in the case that accusations are
false don't mean that the accusations must be false for legal
action to be taken.
TPW could take legal action if he wants to present to the world
that the accusations are false and smear the accuser. This would
be a situation where the accusations are true, but legal action
is still taken.
But the logical conclusion of your argument is that no individual or organization should ever threaten or take legal action against people who make false accusations.
I wasn't making an argument so much as stating that making only truthful statements does not indemnify one from being the target of legal action by someone that publicly states they will only go after 'false accusers.'
That's true, but not particularly meaningful, since any statement from any person or company could be a lie regardless of how specific it is.
The company's claim that they will pursue legal action against false accusations should not discourage people from making true accusations, because the statement provides absolutely no information about what the company intends to do with true accusations. An analogy would be the statement "we will pursue legal action against anyone who trespasses on company property." That shouldn't discourage employees from going into their offices.
I'm sure she'd be very reassured by the fact that, after a drawn out battle and legal fees she can ill-afford, she'd probably defeat the lawsuit in the end. Maybe. Assuming she can both prove her claims to the satisfaction of the courts and afford the lawyers to do so.
We have statements from the two most relevant people in this situation: the accuser and the accused. Their statements are contradictory. Without further evidence, I see no reason to believe one over the other.
> We have statements from the two most relevant people in this situation: the accuser and the accused. Their statements are contradictory. Without further evidence, I see no reason to believe one over the other.
Sure, and that's a legitimate conclusion to reach. Its different than a "no evidence" situation, and different reasonable people can reasonably view the contradictory claims as having different weights and not simply offsetting.
EDIT: And we actually have more than that, since we have statements from several individuals related to the events, plus the Github official statement in their press release on the investigation they commissioned, and those statements do not amount to simple direct contradictions of each other; but the point remains, there is a difference between a "no evidence" situation and a situation where there is a pile of evidence but where a particular observer doesn't find it sufficient to justify a particular conclusion or action.
Obviously it comes down to what we consider "evidence." I have trouble considering someone saying that something happened, as "evidence" if there is no other relevant information. If I stand up in the office and claim that I saw personA murder someone, does that suddenly constitute non-zero evidence that personA is a murderer? If I write a program to randomly generate claims and post them to my Twitter account, is each tweet a non-zero amount of evidence?
> I have trouble considering someone saying that something happened, as "evidence" if there is no other relevant information.
Witness testimony is generally considered an important form of evidence. Obviously, whether there is corroborating (or, OTOH, conflicting) evidence effects the conclusions that one draws, but that's true of any instance of evidence, not just statements.
> If I stand up in the office and claim that I saw personA murder someone, does that suddenly constitute non-zero evidence that personA is a murderer?
Yes, although standing on its own it would be extremely weak evidence.
> If I write a program to randomly generate claims and post them to my Twitter account, is each tweet a non-zero amount of evidence?
No, because that's not an person making a claim of facts about which they assert direct knowledge. Its kind of irrelevant to the present circumstance, given that no one has challenged the authenticity of the source of Horvath's (or of the other participant's) claims here.
Shouldn't it be 'innocent until proven guilty' in this case? This certainly spreads some negative advertisement for Github. If the case is not clear, they should wait till it's clear.
The investigation "did find evidence of mistakes and errors of judgment. In light of these findings, Tom has submitted his resignation, which the company has accepted."
That seems entirely guilty (if you want to make it into an issue of guilt)to me. github did have "mistakes and errors of judgment" serious enough that Tom resigned.
There is a difference between mistakes and errors of judgment and "gender-based harassment or discrimination". Someone may be harassed for a different reason than their gender. For example a personal vendetta or abuse of power vs. systemic discrimination against women (or men or other).
Github admits that there was wrongdoing by Github executives, but denies (without details) that any of it was the specific kind for which Github would be legally liable. Its not entirely surprising that people give more weight to the part which constitutes a statement against interest than the part that is clearly self-serving, in the absence of supporting details.
It can be, but it isn't always. The reason for the presumption of innocence combined with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials is a judgement about the desirability of the particular effects that can be expected with and without that principal.
It cannot automatically be assumed that those considerations generalize to other contexts -- they must be considered in each context.
In the broader context, like in the legal context, it's not a claim about what is true, but rather a claim about what we should believe (or more appropriately, how we should treat the accused) given the evidence we have. You don't say "this person definitely didn't commit a crime, because we don't have evidence," but rather "we don't consider this person guilty, and thus don't punish him or her, until we get some evidence."
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the post, but I understood it to say that what the authors perceived as a "threat of legal action" was a significant factor in their decision. I presume that is a reference to Tom Preston-Werner's comment: "we are prepared to fight any further false claims on this matter to the full extent of the law."[1]
Just to be clear: I'm only stating my interpretation of Ada's comments. I know nothing of what actually transpired at GitHub, thus I have not formed an opinion about it. Nor do I claim to know whether anyone threatened or intended to threaten legal action.
Edit: In case it wasn't clear from the above post, I'm not taking sides with or against Ada, Github, or anyone else. I'm stating what I took to be Ada's reasoning, but not endorsing nor criticizing that reasoning.
Your criticism is equally applicable to any advocacy organization that distances themselves from an alleged situation that they morally oppose.
For example, would you say the same thing about EFF and ACLU speakers canceling their RSA conference talks, due to a "biased interpretation of unclear events" of RSA collaborating with the NSA?
Horvath alleges that illegal behavior took place. Github has said that their investigation has found no such thing, leaving things at an impasse until Horvath produces the evidence that she claims to have.
The NSA likewise says that no illegal behavior took place. Independent investigations by other arms of the government, including the Senate, have found otherwise. Furthermore, some of the behavior that the EFF and ACLU object to -- such as the collection of metadata -- the NSA do not deny that they are doing it. They only claim that such activity is legal and beneficial.
Until Github takes a stand or makes an assertion with which we can agree or disagree with, the situations are not the same. Right now, Github is basically being asked "Have you stopped sexually harassing your female employees yet?" and its refusal to answer that question is apparently grounds to judge Github.
Thanks for your feedback, but please re-read my example more carefully.
In my example, I talked about organizations distancing themselves from RSA (the company), not the NSA (the US govt agency).
And as far as I know, no formal, independent investigation has found RSA guilty of allegations that they knowingly weakened their encryption after the NSA paid them to do so. So it doesn't meet the criteria you just mentioned.
But to your more specific scenario...we are still talking about a much different level of evidence. OK, let's agree that RSA has not been found "guilty" by any authority.
But the allegations do not come from just...well, whoever we might call the original accuser (Snowden? Greenwald?). Independent reports have alleged substantial claims and findings. For example, this is via Reuters, who is also sourcing reports to a group of academics:
> (Reuters) - Security industry pioneer RSA adopted not just one but two encryption tools developed by the U.S. National Security Agency, greatly increasing the spy agency's ability to eavesdrop on some Internet communications, according to a team of academic researchers.
Reuters reported in December that the NSA had paid RSA $10 million to make a now-discredited cryptography system the default in software used by a wide range of Internet and computer security programs. The system, called Dual Elliptic Curve, was a random number generator, but it had a deliberate flaw - or "back door" - that allowed the NSA to crack the encryption.
A group of professors from Johns Hopkins, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Illinois and elsewhere now say they have discovered that a second NSA tool exacerbated the RSA software's vulnerability
Even more importantly, RSA did not issue a denial (though I concede that they may have later on, I just haven't googled it yet)...they refused to comment even on the possibility that the NSA made a payment to them regarding the controversial issue.
> We could have been more skeptical of NSA's intentions," RSA Chief Technologist Sam Curry told Reuters. "We trusted them because they are charged with security for the U.S. government and U.S. critical infrastructure."
Curry declined to say if the government had paid RSA to incorporate Extended Random in its BSafe security kit, which also housed Dual Elliptic Curve.
This is quite different than Github. Github not only commented (and took the obvious stance that harassment is wrong) on the allegations a day or so after they were public, but they have launched an independent investigation, and they have asserted that the investigation did not uncover anything for them to cop to. Now you may say that their investigation was a farce...but this, again, is where things stand until more accusers/evidence come out. And it is at this state of uncertainty that Ada Initiative has decided to take a strong position.
> Even more importantly, RSA did not issue a denial (though I concede that they may have later on, I just haven't googled it yet):
Here is RSA's denial (emphasis added):
"RSA, as a security company, never divulges details of customer engagements, but we also categorically state that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA’s products, or introducing potential ‘backdoors’ into our products for anyone’s use."
Yes, this leaves leeway for "oh, we just didn't know that they were backdooring us". But do you have proof that RSA was actually aware of the consequences of implementing the NSA's "suggestions" (and did it anyway for the $$$), and not just really naïve about it?
The EFF, on its part, is not basing its stance just on the existence of intentional wrongdoing, but on what it regards as carelessness by RSA to not fix a protocol that was publicly questioned in 2007. That this protocol was questioned is not under debate. And that the protocol was flawed is also not under debate.
So again, you can say, "Well how was RSA supposed to know that those Microsoft researchers were onto something? And how do you expect RSA to figure it out after just five years?" But that's a different deal than we have with Github. The only evidence we have of Github's collective wrongdoings are that Horvath felt that she had to quit. We do have (implicit) evidence that the co-founder did something wrong, because he offered his resignation. But he has made it adamantly clear that what he screwed up in had nothing to do with gender-based discrimination. Which is purportedly the issue that Ada Initiative is most incensed about. What we have now, though, is that there were clearly bad management problems at Github. And if Ada Initiative wants to boycott a company for having such internal strife, then that's their right.
There's a whole lot more clarity in the actions of the NSA than there are with this situation. There isn't a single amount of proof that's been given to anyone outside of GitHub of the investigation that can say one way or the other who is in the wrong. It's a bunch of he said, she said.
> The Ada Initiative supports women in open technology and culture through activities like producing codes of conduct and anti-harassment policies, advocating for gender diversity, teaching allies, and hosting conferences for women in open tech/culture.
If there is a sense that Github doesn't have a proper anti-harassment policy in place, distancing certainly doesn't hurt the initiative's goals
I would argue the correct path of action would be to work with Github to develop a proper anti-harassment policy, rather than cutting ties. While the harassment incident is certainly bad (if unclear), Github has done other things and shown a willingness to do more to further Ada's goals.
Now, maybe there is more to the story, but the post didn't seem to reveal it.
Where do they say that their goal is to fight against prejudice? I scanned their about pages, and my impression is that their primary goal is to support women.
Fighting anti-female prejudice could conceivably be part of a strategy for supporting women. At least, it wouldn't be surprising if an organization dedicated to supporting group X fought prejudice against group X.
Not really. As a small nonprofit, Ada initiative probably doesn't have the resources to deal with controversy and so it's better to cut ties than to put itself into a charged political situation which would threaten its mission.
Github isn't the only provider of resources out there. Presumably the opportunity cost of breaking off relationswith Github seems to be lower than the opportunity cost of maintaining them. Also, the choice I mentioned was not about whether to maximize resources but about how to sutain its mission. For all I know a large portion of the membership might have been threatening to quit the organization.
My basic point is that it's rarely profitable to be in the middle of someone else's bitter conflict. Given AI's mission and the existence of intense bad feeling on both sides following an accusation of workplace sexism, it's easier and smarter for the organization to just walk way from the whole situation rather than taking sides in a conflict whose parameters they don'tunderstand.
I have no opinion on the whole Horvath/Github situation because I simply don't have enough information to judge whose version of events is truthful, and I don't even have a GitHub account so I don't care much either way. I'm just pointing out that a small nonprofit might have good reasons for not wanting to be connected to a potentially toxic situation.
The Ada Initiative is a notorious drama-generating concern troll organization. They are not a positive force and this sort of behavior is unsurprising from them.
