Large decentralized communities can kick people out, but it’s hard. In the successful cases I’ve seen it has required:
The behavior is clearly unacceptable, in a way that nearly everyone would agree if they looked into it.
Detailed public accusations, so that people can look into it if they doubt the consensus.
The combination of these means that you can have an initial burst of ‘drama’ in which lots of people learn about the situation and agree that the person should be kicked out, and then this can be maintained whenever they show up again.
Some successful examples:
2016: The EA community kicking out Gleb Tsipursky for a range of shady things and a pattern of apologizing and then continuing (details).
2017: The contra dance community kicking out Jordy Williams after accusations of grooming and rape (details).
2018: The rationality community kicking out Brent Dill after accusations of sexual abuse, gaslighting, and more (details).
The main cases I’ve seen where this has not been successful are ones where the community didn’t have (1) or (2). For example, I’ve seen people try to apply this playbook to Jacy Reese, but because exactly what he apologized for is vague it doesn’t entirely stick.
Unfortunately this approach depends on people making public accusations, which is really hard. We should support people when they do and recognize their bravery, but people will often have valid reasons why they won’t: fear of retaliation, unwilling to have that level of public scrutiny, risk of legal action. In those cases it’s still possible to make some progress privately, especially in keeping the person out of official events, but the issues of decentralized communities and defamation law make it hard to go further.
I’ll probably expand this into a blog post. I’d like to include a bit about Michael Vassar, and am thinking about how to fit it in. I think his case is somewhere between Tsipursky/Williams/Dill and Reese’s? There’s Jax’s 2018 thread which is tricky for the purpose of (2) because it (not faulting her) mixes several categories of things (very serious, distasteful, annoyances) and brings in a lot of different people. There’s also this LW thread where in 2019 people were explaining why he needed to be kicked out, but then in 2020/2021 influential people changing their minds and regretting their decision. I’m not sure how much of this is disagreement about whether (1) was met vs not having a clear (2), though it seems like both contributed?
It seems that there would be partial workarounds here, at least in theory. Suppose that CEA or another organization offered a one-hour class called Sexual Misconduct Training for EAs that generated a green, digitally signed certificate of attendance “valid” for a year. The organization does not allow individuals who it has determined to have committed moderate-severity misconduct within the past few years to attend the one-hour class. They may, however, attend a four-hour Intensive Training class with which generates a yellow digitally-signed certificate with a validity of six months. Those known to have committed serious misconduct may only attend a class that does not generate a certificate at all.
A community organizer, party host, etc. could ask people for their certificates and take whatever action they deem appropriate if a person submits a yellow certificate or does not submit one at all. At a minimum, they would know to keep a close eye on the person, ask for references from prior EA involvement, etc. In this scenario, Organization hasn’t spoken about anyone to a third party at all! (Classically, defamation at least in the US requires a false statement purporting to be fact that is published or communicated to a third person.) It has, at most, exercised its right not to speak about the person, which is generally rather protected in the US. And if the person voluntarily shows a third party the certificate, that’s consent on their part.
The greater legal risk might be someone suing if a green-certificate holder commits misconduct . . . but I think that would be a tough sell. First, no one could plausibly claim reliance on the certificate for more than the proposition that Organization had not determined the individual ineligible to take the relevant class at the time the decision was made. To have a case, a plaintiff would have to show that Organization had received a report about the certificate holder, was at least negligent in issuing the certificate in light of that report, and owed them a legal duty not to issue a certificate under those circumstances. As long as Organization is clear about the limits of the certificate process, I think most courts and juries would be hesitant to issue a decision that strongly disincentivizes risk-reduction techniques deployed in good faith and at least moderate effort.
That’s a neat approach! I think it only works for longer events, generally with pre-registration? You don’t want to be requiring a class before you can attend, say, your first EA meetup.
(And within EA I think longer events maybe mostly already check in with the community health team?)
Agree that it wouldn’t work for every event. I could see it working for someone with a pattern of coming to shorter events—asking someone who has become a regular attender at events for a certificate would be appropriate. Although I suggested an hour-long class because I like the idea of everyone regularly in the community receiving training, the less-involved person training could be 10-15 minutes.
I think the increased visibility of the process (compared to CH-event organizer checks) could be a feature. If you hand over a green cert, you are subtly reminded of the advantages of being able to produce one. If you hand over a yellow one, you are made aware that the organizers are aware of your yellow status and will likely be keeping a closer eye on you . . . which is a good thing, I think. Asking to see a certificate before dating or having sex with another EA shouldn’t be an affirmatively encouraged use case, but some people might choose to ask—and that would be 100% up to the person. But that might be an additional incentive for some people to keep to green-cert behavior.
Although no one should take this as legal advice, one of the possible merits of a certificate-based approach is that the lack of merit in a defamation suit should be clear very early in the litigation. The plaintiff will realize quickly that they aren’t going to be able to come up with any evidence on a foundational element of the claim (a communication from defendant to a third party about the plaintff). With a more active check-in, you’re going to have to concede that element and go into discovery on whether there was communication that included (or implied) a false statement of fact. Discovery is generally the most expensive and painful part of litigation—and even better, a would-be plaintiff who can figure out that there was no communication will probably decide never to sue at all.
Yea I basically agree with this although it seems difficult to make an intentional effort to expand the circumstances where individuals are banned because it is only possible when there is wide spread knowledge and agreement about the accusation. However I’m all for making accusations public after some threshold of evidence (although it am not sure exactly what that threshold should be and there would need to be some care with the phrasing to avoid libel lawsuits).
Large decentralized communities can kick people out, but it’s hard. In the successful cases I’ve seen it has required:
The behavior is clearly unacceptable, in a way that nearly everyone would agree if they looked into it.
Detailed public accusations, so that people can look into it if they doubt the consensus.
The combination of these means that you can have an initial burst of ‘drama’ in which lots of people learn about the situation and agree that the person should be kicked out, and then this can be maintained whenever they show up again.
Some successful examples:
2016: The EA community kicking out Gleb Tsipursky for a range of shady things and a pattern of apologizing and then continuing (details).
2017: The contra dance community kicking out Jordy Williams after accusations of grooming and rape (details).
2018: The rationality community kicking out Brent Dill after accusations of sexual abuse, gaslighting, and more (details).
The main cases I’ve seen where this has not been successful are ones where the community didn’t have (1) or (2). For example, I’ve seen people try to apply this playbook to Jacy Reese, but because exactly what he apologized for is vague it doesn’t entirely stick.
Unfortunately this approach depends on people making public accusations, which is really hard. We should support people when they do and recognize their bravery, but people will often have valid reasons why they won’t: fear of retaliation, unwilling to have that level of public scrutiny, risk of legal action. In those cases it’s still possible to make some progress privately, especially in keeping the person out of official events, but the issues of decentralized communities and defamation law make it hard to go further.
I’ll probably expand this into a blog post. I’d like to include a bit about Michael Vassar, and am thinking about how to fit it in. I think his case is somewhere between Tsipursky/Williams/Dill and Reese’s? There’s Jax’s 2018 thread which is tricky for the purpose of (2) because it (not faulting her) mixes several categories of things (very serious, distasteful, annoyances) and brings in a lot of different people. There’s also this LW thread where in 2019 people were explaining why he needed to be kicked out, but then in 2020/2021 influential people changing their minds and regretting their decision. I’m not sure how much of this is disagreement about whether (1) was met vs not having a clear (2), though it seems like both contributed?
Posted: https://www.jefftk.com/p/decentralized-exclusion
(not legal advice, not researched)
It seems that there would be partial workarounds here, at least in theory. Suppose that CEA or another organization offered a one-hour class called Sexual Misconduct Training for EAs that generated a green, digitally signed certificate of attendance “valid” for a year. The organization does not allow individuals who it has determined to have committed moderate-severity misconduct within the past few years to attend the one-hour class. They may, however, attend a four-hour Intensive Training class with which generates a yellow digitally-signed certificate with a validity of six months. Those known to have committed serious misconduct may only attend a class that does not generate a certificate at all.
A community organizer, party host, etc. could ask people for their certificates and take whatever action they deem appropriate if a person submits a yellow certificate or does not submit one at all. At a minimum, they would know to keep a close eye on the person, ask for references from prior EA involvement, etc. In this scenario, Organization hasn’t spoken about anyone to a third party at all! (Classically, defamation at least in the US requires a false statement purporting to be fact that is published or communicated to a third person.) It has, at most, exercised its right not to speak about the person, which is generally rather protected in the US. And if the person voluntarily shows a third party the certificate, that’s consent on their part.
The greater legal risk might be someone suing if a green-certificate holder commits misconduct . . . but I think that would be a tough sell. First, no one could plausibly claim reliance on the certificate for more than the proposition that Organization had not determined the individual ineligible to take the relevant class at the time the decision was made. To have a case, a plaintiff would have to show that Organization had received a report about the certificate holder, was at least negligent in issuing the certificate in light of that report, and owed them a legal duty not to issue a certificate under those circumstances. As long as Organization is clear about the limits of the certificate process, I think most courts and juries would be hesitant to issue a decision that strongly disincentivizes risk-reduction techniques deployed in good faith and at least moderate effort.
That’s a neat approach! I think it only works for longer events, generally with pre-registration? You don’t want to be requiring a class before you can attend, say, your first EA meetup.
(And within EA I think longer events maybe mostly already check in with the community health team?)
Agree that it wouldn’t work for every event. I could see it working for someone with a pattern of coming to shorter events—asking someone who has become a regular attender at events for a certificate would be appropriate. Although I suggested an hour-long class because I like the idea of everyone regularly in the community receiving training, the less-involved person training could be 10-15 minutes.
I think the increased visibility of the process (compared to CH-event organizer checks) could be a feature. If you hand over a green cert, you are subtly reminded of the advantages of being able to produce one. If you hand over a yellow one, you are made aware that the organizers are aware of your yellow status and will likely be keeping a closer eye on you . . . which is a good thing, I think. Asking to see a certificate before dating or having sex with another EA shouldn’t be an affirmatively encouraged use case, but some people might choose to ask—and that would be 100% up to the person. But that might be an additional incentive for some people to keep to green-cert behavior.
Although no one should take this as legal advice, one of the possible merits of a certificate-based approach is that the lack of merit in a defamation suit should be clear very early in the litigation. The plaintiff will realize quickly that they aren’t going to be able to come up with any evidence on a foundational element of the claim (a communication from defendant to a third party about the plaintff). With a more active check-in, you’re going to have to concede that element and go into discovery on whether there was communication that included (or implied) a false statement of fact. Discovery is generally the most expensive and painful part of litigation—and even better, a would-be plaintiff who can figure out that there was no communication will probably decide never to sue at all.
Yea I basically agree with this although it seems difficult to make an intentional effort to expand the circumstances where individuals are banned because it is only possible when there is wide spread knowledge and agreement about the accusation. However I’m all for making accusations public after some threshold of evidence (although it am not sure exactly what that threshold should be and there would need to be some care with the phrasing to avoid libel lawsuits).