

Violet Blue: What happened with my Security BSides talk - rdl
http://violetblue.tumblr.com/post/44107008572/what-happened-with-my-security-bsides-talk

======
tedks
From the Ada Initiative response[1]:

"Simply put, even the world’s most pro-woman, sex-positive, pro-consent talk
about sex is likely to have negative effects on women at a technical
conference."

This seems like an incredibly accurate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly
consequentialist view of the situation. It's supported by an overwhelming
majority of objective evidence[2][3][4][5][6].

It is already being attacked as "against hacker culture," because apparently
"hacker culture" is synonymous with "propagate any and all information
regardless of the social consequences." Sharing information openly and freely
is generally a good thing, because it generally leads to good results. But
that's no reason to continue to senselessly spread information that will
almost certainly lead to bad things.

To head off the inevitable argument about "censorship" and "freedom of
speech," I'll note that nobody here was censored, nor denied freedom of
speech. One group used their freedom of speech to convince another group
hosting a conference to exercise its freedom of speech and not endorse a talk
they were apparently convinced was harmful. Freedom of speech doesn't permit
you the use of any platform as your own. My freedom of speech doesn't entitle
me to writing the Washington Post's front page headline (or getting any space
in the paper at all).

It looks like the organizers were right not to allow this talk to be given at
their conference, and I for one applaud them for that, even though they'll
inevitably be subject to backlash.

[1] [http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/keeping-it-on-topic-the-
pro...](http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/keeping-it-on-topic-the-problem-with-
discussing-sex-at-technical-conferences/)

[2] <http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/30/1/59.short>

[3]
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-006-9140-x...](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-006-9140-x..).

[4] That swimsuit becomes you: sex differences in self-objectification,
restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of personality and social
psychology [0022-3514] Fredrickson yr:1998 vol:75 iss:1 pg:269

[5]
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ASERS.00000323...](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ASERS.00000323..).

[6] <http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/FredricksonRoberts.pdf>

~~~
cupcake-unicorn
Does anyone know if it's normal to keep the title/content of talks TBD until
that soon before the talk? That stood out as odd to me.

~~~
rdl
I think it is just that she's procrastinating a lot (which I'm also doing for
a conference tomorrow). It wasn't intentional.

She has a few talks on slightly edgy topics which she gives at different
venues. The "hackers and suicide" one from CCC was probably more interesting,
but that was just delivered 2 months ago to a largely overlapping audience.

~~~
cupcake-unicorn
I wonder what would have happened if that was the talk to be cancelled? That's
a triggery topic regardless of gender.

~~~
rdl
IMO it should be about cost/benefit.

I'd never put a Bond Girl in my talk (I might have at one point, but now I'm
convinced it's slightly offensive); there's no reason. A Lena photo for an
image processing talk, maybe, because that's essentially the standard.

However, I'd be fine with a talk about sex, drugs, rape, suicide, etc., if it
served a purpose. It has to be in the right venue, and I think BSides actually
is a good venue for a lot of those topics (or CCC, or HAL/HIP/etc., or parts
of Defcon, or Hope, but not RSA). It should be disclosed up front, and ideally
way in advance.

------
rdl
I originally was 100% pitchfork-of-Ada-Initiative (which I in theory support;
selfishly I'd really like there to be more women in technology, since that
would make hiring people in technology easier by increasing the supply.)

I didn't realize her talk title/abstract hadn't been published until an hour
before the event. I assumed Valerie Aurora (Henson) (who is one of the
directors of Ada, and was attending the conference) chose to wait until the
last minute to make the complaint, for maximal lulz, but I guess that didn't
happen.

I sat through this talk (at least one which was 90% similar) at BSidesLV; it
was great, and educational, and pretty focused on harm reduction.

I think a key element is that BSides isn't a "tech conference"; it's
specifically a hacker conference for all the talks which are inappropriate for
the main conference going on at the time (i.e. RSA, a very corporate event) --
basically the same as Defcon Skytalks. It was way more drug focused than sex
focused, too, and essentially a medical/safety talk about behavior people
have, how to deal with it, etc. I mean, I've never shot up heroin and had gay
sex, and have zero plans to do so, but it's useful to know why (for instance)
needle exchange programs are helpful, and why outreach to some of these
communities should be done in different ways than to the general population.

I wouldn't consider this an appropriate talk for RSA or even for the main
track at a local security con, but BSides is different.

I agree it wasn't government censorship, but it was someone using an
organization with an overall mission I support (involving women in technology)
to push another more personal agenda, so now I don't support that
organization.

It looks like some people are forming alternative organizations to focus on
the inclusive parts of what I thought was Ada Initiative's mission (dealing
harassment at cons, educational outreach, etc.), so I guess I (and presumably
sponsors) will shift toward those. I don't think I'd speak at an event which
was as beholden to Ada Initiative as BSidesSF appears to be, though.

------
mille562
It would be nice if all the parties involved would talk to each other directly
to get a better understanding of the miscommunication. It would help for a
better outcome of future situations like this.

------
cupcake-unicorn
I don't know all the background, and I don't want to end up victim blaming,
but often I've found these things to be red flags:

I do remember there was some drama involving her and BoingBoing a few years
back. I do not remember all the details at the moment, but I do remember
feeling as if it seemed like the situation was twisted to put herself in the
spotlight. So with that in mind, when I saw "I reported on corruption at
Wikipedia, so be sure to read the unbiased and accurate Violet Blue bio here."
little alarm bells went off.

I'm admitting I don't know the whole situation, and I'm not saying Wikipedia
is an infallibly unbiased source, but the fact that the main tag on one's blog
has to point seems really odd to me.

The article came off as reasonable and well written, as I feel her other blog
posts were back when I do vaguely remember the BoingBoing drama, but I'm glad
the other comment is on here, to get both sides of the story. It does portray
the talk organizer in a negative and reactionary light that I don't know is
reasonable.

~~~
anateus
I think it's clear in this case Violet Blue isn't a cause or direct antecedent
of drama, regardless of her history.

Her post above, to me, sounds like she was basically talking to a middleman
who didn't convey the message from the Ada Initiative in a manner as nuanced
as they would. I really really don't think they meant to say as simplistic "is
there any rape we can't have rape". But the "drama" around this started before
she made the post above showing the details of her side of the situation.

~~~
cupcake-unicorn
Yeah, I do agree, and I hope my first post tried to make that clear - I just
have seen a trend with some dramatic bloggers in the past, so it often clouds
my view when reading an unrelated/less biased post.

It is reasonable for her to be upset about it, and it does seem as if it was
handled poorly, but I guess ultimately it was the conference's call.

~~~
rdl
The conference is getting pilloried within the security community (and other
organizers of BSides conferences), it seems, although that may just be that
the loudest voices are the most opposed to what happened. BSidesLV extended an
open invitation for her to speak (again), and made it clear they'd never bar
someone for a talk like this.

At the same time it would also suck if the response to censorship were hostile
to women or whatever.

