User:Tecknow/DEI resolution

The problem

The safety concerns of marginalized people are not being addressed in ways that allow the people harmed, or other members of their community, to feel safe.

The harms

To those directly involved

When issues are only partially addressed or handled through suppression, harm is amplified and continued into the future. Not only does someone harmed have to wonder if something similar could happen again, they have to wonder if the community understands and agrees that they were harmed, or that what happened to them should not have happened, and could have been handled better, if not prevented outright.

To marginalized communities

When issues are only partially addressed or handled through suppression, the bad things that happened remain the most current and relevant news to members of that community, and to other vulnerable communities. Not only do people worry if something similar might happen to them, many will feel a responsibility to share this information to warn and protect others.

Maintaining safety through whisper networks is sometimes necessary, but it is emotionally costly and increases the risks of inaccurate or outdated information distorting the situation. We should strive to avoid situations where such informal networks are necessary and/or the best option to stay informed.

To the PS:1 community

PS:1 will struggle to recruit and retain members of marginalized communities as long as these issues remain unresolved, even if the worst problems don't repeat themselves. Our community will be poorer for this, because of the perspectives that we will not hear. And the more homogenous a space, the more devoid of marginalized people, the higher the danger that actively unsafe people will establish undisrupted networks within the community that will make protecting the safety of marginalized people more difficult.

Concerns for any solution

Horizontal hostility and intersectional conflicts

There are many queer and neurodivergent people in the community, as well as members of other marginalized groups. It's true that many of the people involved in the unsatisfactory and incomplete resolution of issues are themselves marginalized, sometimes in the same or related ways to the injured parties. This is to be expected. We do not automatically know how to protect each other, and we all come in with experiences in a wider world that isn't built for us. Queerphobia can exist in queer spaces, disabled people can be ableist, and so on. The fact that people share a marginalization doesn't excuse or justify anything. We must do our best to improve.

Privacy and accountability

It's true that privacy can be an important consideration, if for no other reason than that putting victims in the spotlight will encourage many people not to come forward. Oversharing may also make the resolution that injured parties want impossible. Nobody wants the story of one of the worst things to happen to them in a community to be the thing that follows them around in it. It can, sometimes, even make it harder for someone who did harm to improve or follow an agreement they've made in resolution. If everyone knows that someone has agreed not to restart a particular argument, they have the option of forcing the issue

But too much privacy becomes secrecy and is a big part of why situations can't ever be fully resolved.

Requirements for any solution

1. The people harmed need to know that the harm to them has been recognized.
2. The people harmed need to know what they can expect to be different so they can be confident the same problem will not repeat.
3. The PS:1 community needs to know enough to enforce any resolution
4. Members who share a marginalization need to be confident that the situation was resolved, so the resolution, not just the problem, becomes the most current and relevant information.

Privacy and conflict resolution

The risks

As I said above, too much privacy becomes secrecy and resolution becomes suppression. People aren't sure what they can or are supposed to share. Information passes at low confidence through rumor and hearsay. Old information can persist for a long time this way. People can be unsure if there's a resolution and pass along the best incomplete information they have, which will rarely be good news. It can also interfere with any resolutions. Nobody can help enforce a rule that is secret from them.

The intuitive view

At first it can look like saying nothing always protects everyone's privacy by default. It can be tempting to say as little as possible to avoid stirring up drama. Unfortunately neither of these intuitions is correct. They implicitly assume that official statements are the only source for information, but they are not and never can be. There are always bystanders, there are always people who overhear part of what's going on. People involved naturally, reasonably, and inevitably talk to their friends and families about things, and people involved still need to operate in the community. The environment is naturally filled with people who have partial information.

For it to be possible to stir up drama, the drama must already be present.

A more helpful view

Rather than creating the problem of partial information - which already exists - official statements create anchor points. They draw things out of informal networks and into the open. They make it more clear what can be discussed publicly and ideally allow people to know when they don't need to go digging for more details.

During fandom conventions it is not unusual for an event's social media to be a slow drip of reminders about different policies, and it's widely understood that these are often in response to some situation concerning them. Sure, this can encourage some people to go looking for more information. But it also lets people with partial information know that a situation has been acknowledged and is being investigated. Updates become more detailed as needed and eventually it is clear to people with partial information that the situation has been resolved. It's rarely necessary to name-and-shame people.

Regarding the privacy of injured parties, public statements can help them manage their disclosures. Often, people know that something happened, and having public statements gives them something to point to without needing to treat people's concerns - which might be good intentioned and even fair! - as personal questions.

Some general guidelines I would personally follow are these:

1. The privacy of victims is paramount, with the awareness that maximum privacy may limit community response.
2. The privacy of perpetrators matters too, but should yield as needed to facilitate any safety concerns or resolution.
3. Official statements are often required to make sure people are informed and confident in their safety
4. People with partial information will draw inferences from official statements, this is not automatically a privacy issue.
5. The fact that a public statement may encourage someone to look for more information is also not automatically a privacy issue
6. Situations that encourage people to speculate, or continue passing on outdated information, conversely, _are_ privacy concerns, among other problems that they pose.

If it's not clear to you how too much secrecy can be a privacy concern, remember that rumors can grow unbounded and are extremely difficult to correct. A commitment to saying nothing allows rumors to persist and grow. Having an issue that was resolved brought up as if it was new or ongoing can be harmful to everyone involved. And rumors twisted and amplified by retelling can put pressure on the person who was harmed to clarify what did not happen. This can be used to undermine them, carries a heavy emotional toll, and might not even work.

What does this look like?

I'm not going to claim that this is either obvious or easy. I do want to commend the recent - at the time of this writing - handling of a disruptive member on the PS1 Discord. The official statement explained the situation in a way that could be understood by everyone, acknowledged the specific problems for those who experienced it, and presented the resolution.

Importantly, while the response did not name the person removed, it was also unconcerned with the fact that it would be relatively easy to find that information.

The community has the capability to do this.