
Blocked by JSConf.eu Twitter account - ondras
https://medium.com/@0ndras/banned-from-following-a-conference-e6a277d079ae
======
DanBC
When you have an international group of people all speaking English as a
second language the conversation can become a bit prickly.

There isn't anything obvious here - a bit of complaining but it all seems mild
and accurate:
[https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=%40jsconfeu%20from%3A0ndras&...](https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=%40jsconfeu%20from%3A0ndras&src=typd)

 _Purely guessing_ here, you might want to avoid tweeting "Stupid fucking
white man" at conference organisers.
[https://twitter.com/0ndras/status/960901913624576001](https://twitter.com/0ndras/status/960901913624576001)
\-- but this is just a guess. I have no idea if that's why they blocked you.

~~~
amingilani
He didn't tweet that at the organizers. He quoted an article and linked to the
article.

~~~
DanBC
Here's what I see if I click on the stupid fucking white man tweet. It shows
the message is a reply to 3 accounts, including the conference.

[https://imgur.com/a/1RlK4MN](https://imgur.com/a/1RlK4MN)

~~~
amingilani
Oh wow, I missed the replies because I couldn't understand them. Thanks!

------
saintPirelli
After reading the "code of conduct" on their homepage I would assume that you
have unknowligly broken something like

> "Using gendered terms like “dude” or “guys” to address a mixed-gendered
> group of people contributes to furthering exclusion of underrepresented
> individuals."

The fact that they included an option to "make an anonymous" report furthers
the assumption that you just got under the political wheels of the conference.

~~~
rplnt
I'm fairly certain I saw "guys" used to address even women-only groups in
American movies and TV.

Conference that wants to be internationally inclusive, which I assume a
conference in English held in Germany wants to be, should not ostracize people
based on grammar technicalities.

That's just one word, but pronouns in particular differ greatly across
languages. Objects can have genders, occupations can have genders, plurals can
differ or be the same, etc.. Someone who is not a native speaker can easily
make a mistake that is related to gender.

It's always the intent that should be taken into account, not whether someone
was offended.

~~~
c12
I've never assumed "guys" to be gendered, here it just refers to a group of
people.

~~~
Xylakant
That's why it's pointed out in the CoC - to make people aware that not all
people feel included by "guys". I know quite a few that don't.

~~~
dsajames
They may not _feel_ included, but it's proper English to use guys as an
ungendered reference to a group. It's been in the dictionary a very long time.

~~~
Xylakant
It’s also correct to use a male gendered pronoun in German to refer to a group
of mixed gender, even though other options exist. But why do you insist on
using a term of which a substantial group of people says that it makes them
feel excluded once you’ve been made aware of that fact. What does it cost you
to avoid that term? Stomping you right feet and yelling that “But it’s
correct! The dictionary says so!” just makes you look like an insensitive
jerk. Obviously it’s your call to make - it’s not against the law to behave
like an insensitive jerk and nobody wants to deprive you of that right. But I
totally can relate that people prefer not to be around other people that
insist on behaving like an insensitive jerk just because a dictionary says
it’s correct. So if you insist, you have to accept the consequences.

~~~
tekknik
Spend any amount of time with an ESOL person and you’ll understand why. This
is only an issue in primary english speaking countries. English is a
complicated language to learn because of all these “rules” primary speakers
make up that aren’t actually defined in the language. Also at what point is
there a line? should we remove all words that a group of people find
offensive? should the people finding the words offensive adjust their
viewpoint? i’ve known people finding words like “petty” (as in petty officer)
and even “sir”/“ma’am” offensive so should we also stop using those?

~~~
Xylakant
No, you're not required to avoid any word. You're free to use any word that
you choose. You just have to accept the consequences. If you come to my house
or my office and - despite being made aware that certain language is not
welcome - use those words, you'll have to live with the fact that you're not
welcome any more. That's what a CoC does - it points out the ground rules for
expected behavior. Start swearing loudly in a church and you'll learn a thing
or two about informal CoCs.

------
mosselman
I have not experience with running any popular twitter handles, but I can
imagine that they block lots of people for various reasons, ranging from
trivial to non-trivial. Honestly, if I were you, I'd simply let it go and not
care if you can.

Also, from the information you have given, from a certain point of view, you
might come off a bit needy: You send in 5-6 proposals per year and send direct
messages and mails to multiple people when you don't receive answers and you
care about whether some twitter account is blocking you or not.

I am not saying you are needy, I am just saying it could come off that way and
that might have lead to either being blocked or communicated in non-tactful
ways.

~~~
philjackson
> You send in 5-6 proposals per year and send direct messages and mails to
> multiple people when you don't receive answers

Jesus, if you think that comes off as needy, you should see what founders
often have to do to get going.

~~~
mosselman
Is this back door bragging?

So nothing can be categorised if it is not the most extreme example of its
potential category?

------
bausshf
Sounds like a conference run by incompetent people, which is usually the vibe
I get from glorified "javascript users".

Definitely not a conference I'd ever attend.

A conference for technology is usually supposed to be a social gathering for
people with a shared interest, not a formal conference like a business
gathering.

The only thing I can't think of is that you submitted a lot of proposals and
they perhaps thought it was spam, but the response they gave you they clearly
knew it wasn't spam.

Perhaps they have small children's mentality and didn't like the challenge of
someone with a different point of view and perhaps better knowledge; although
that alone would be kind of ironic since most people go to such conferences to
hear the minds of bright people.

From the information you've given, I'm unable to find a logical reason for
your ban.

~~~
downandout
It could be the number of proposals. I haven't seen his Twitter, but if he
mentioned being a member of the "Brendan Eich fan club" on Twitter as he did
on his blog, that may have also led to his being blocked. Brendan Eich was
forced out of his role as CEO of Mozilla after a few vocal employees there
found out he had donated $1,000 to support an anti-gay marriage bill in
California many years before he was CEO. If the people behind this conference
do not like Brendan Eich because of this, perhaps the author's support of him
is to blame for the ban.

~~~
ondras
The "Brendan Eich club" is actually a small inside joke, as the sign was one
of the official "features" of JSConf.eu 2011, where Brendan was an invited
speaker :)

~~~
topynate
Yes, but that was seven years ago, and Things Are Different Now.

(Just leafed through their twitter. I'm seeing a lot of the same clique as
were involved in the node.js brouhaha last year. Is this conference really
worth the fuss?)

~~~
EGreg
This whole thing is a bit amusing.

So Brendan Eich invented JS, and then led Mozilla.

And being in the Brendan Eich Fan Club in 2011 probably was a positive thing
and a cool thing for JS people.

Then much later, Brendan Eich donates $1000 to some political thing people
strongly disagree with

So retroactively, being a fan of Brendan Eich means you are a homophobic hater
and must be blocked?

I am quite sure this ain’t it :)

~~~
jmmcd
You understand the timeline, but the virtue-signalling mob on Twitter probably
doesn't.

------
petercooper
I've been blocked by a related account for years, the only altercation I ever
had with them was when their founder was drunk one night (their admission) and
went nuts at me for not linking the conference enough in my newsletter :-D
Social stuff is hard, running events is hard, and people get stressed - it is
what it is.

------
michaelmrose
What kind of people tell paying customers they are not worth the time required
to answer a question?

~~~
matt4077
I deliberately chose not to work in the "enterprise" market with 6-digit
contracts anymore and instead sell a consumer product to many more people so
that I could fire any customer that annoyed me without thinking twice about
it. They get their money back and can find someone else to annoy.

I really don't see what's so outrageous about the practice. There is no moral
law that being paid by someone somehow creates a hierarchy where people can
waste your time.

Edit, because you seem to have edited your comment: That doesn't happen for a
single, innocuous, \question, obviously. Reading between the line and in this
thread, OP submitted 30(!) proposals for talks, sent follow-ups on each of
them, plus other questions. At some point someone /probably/ got annoyed. I'd
even wager money he's a running joke among the organizers.

~~~
beaconstudios
the key factor is whether they ever _told_ him "hey, you're spamming the
conference at this point, please tone it down." \- otherwise it's just
passive-aggressive. Would you simply close a client's account and refund them
without ever telling them that you were considering such actions? Because that
would be extremely unprofessional.

~~~
pdimitar
Sounds suspiciously like what Google is doing every now and then. Oh, but they
don't refund.

------
lgleason
Given the people they gave speaker slots to this year I don't think you are
missing a lot. This conference has become blatantly political, vs focusing on
tech, the later of which I'm assuming is why are you wanting to attend.

------
sylvinus
This is rather surprising coming from JSConf.eu, which is widely respected and
run by people who really care about their community. I'd like to hear their
side before making any judgement.

------
palerno
You either follow an account that has been banned, or the accounts you follow
themselves follow accounts that have been banned. In the other direction, an
account that follows you has been banned or they follow accounts that have
been banned. @jsconfeu probably use some of the popular lists.

~~~
Buge
So if I have a banned account I can cause arbitrary people to be banned simply
by following them? It doesn't seem like a good idea to give me that power.

~~~
BonoboIO
BAAS - Banning As A Service

------
spraak
I was wondering if it was accidental, but then the author did reach out to a
few different sources and didn't receive an answer... which could still be
coincidence, but makes it seem less likely.

~~~
methyl
> author didn't receive an answer

He actually did:

> Hi Ondrej,

> dealing with this is at the bottom of our rather indefinitely long priority
> list. Don’t expect a swift resolution.

> We’d appreciate not being bugged about this again.

It seems they did it on purpose and they refuse to at least clarify why. My
bet is that they did it for some childish reason and they don't have a courage
to admit the mistake.

I hope they will now shed some light on what happened.

~~~
bigiain
Might not be "on purpose", OP might just be getting caught in some blocklist
crossfire.

It happened in a very similar way for a different conference here:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/08/twi...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/08/twitter_blocklists_they_can_stop_harassment_and_they_can_create_entirely.html)

If they're in the middle of a Twitter dogpile, they probably wouldn't care too
much about one particular guy on a blocklist if several hundred sockpuppet
accounts organising on 4chan are all sending the same whining emails...

(They could have handled that email response more politely, but I can pretty
easily imagine a situation where OP looks like part of the problem rather than
collateral damage...)

~~~
larkeith
Honestly, whether he was caught in a crossfire, intentionally banned, or even
received a response meant for someone else, this is still utterly
inadmissible. There is no possible situation an email of this sort is
acceptable in any sort of professional context, let alone coming from a
conference organizer.

------
DoubleGlazing
Personally I'd walk away, life is too short to care about why a twitter user
blocked you.

But seeing as this is in the EU, the author could use the GDPR to find out why
he was banned.

~~~
jesperht
Out of curiosity, what part of the GDPR would require them to explain the ban-
reason?

~~~
struppi
They probably have personal data / personal identifiable information about you
when they blocked you and _still know about it_... And you can ask them what
data they have about you.

~~~
nicky0
You think they are keeping a permanent database of twitter block reasons?

~~~
mijamo
Doesn't need to be a database, a simple spreadsheet or text file would do as
well.

And you would be surprised to know how frequent those are (not necessarily
about Twitter but in general about customers/employees/visitors in shops etc.)

~~~
DoubleGlazing
Or just an email message mentioning the person. That's why I brought up the
GDPR in the first place. My wife knew someone who was complaining against his
insurance company, they were blanking him. So he put in a subject access
request and in all the stuff he got back was an instruction sent to all
customer service staff via email telling them to block him if he ever tried to
contact them via social media.

The above happened under the 1995 DPD regime, the GDPR would probably be even
more useful.

------
jakobegger
Why do you keep bugging someone when they obviously do not want you to contact
them?

Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"

Not replying to direct messages or emails is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"

Nobody needs to explain why they want to be left alone.

Maybe stop thinking about yourself, and just accept that the people behind the
twitter handles just don't want you to contact them anymore for whatever
reason.

~~~
ItsMe000001
What you say is true if it was a private person. This is about a conference
that seems to be important professionally to that person.

They even replied to him - why not just say WHY and get it over with once and
for all? This is just stupid, not (just) unprofessional. If they could at
least point to "we already told you, now get lost" \- but never giving a
reason... it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, second, just a
Twitter block), so the usual (at least understandable) justifications e.g.
when not giving reasons when not hiring someone don't apply.

~~~
abcd_f
Perhaps all his 30 speech proposals were completely inane and he's been viewed
by organizers as that spammy fellow in late stages Dunning–Kruger syndrome? If
that's the case, then muting communications is the least offensive option and
it is entirely appropriate. However it does require the other side to be able
to take a hint.

~~~
ItsMe000001
Perhaps - then _tell him_.

The reason does not matter (especially since we are unlikely to hear it from
anyone), what matters is that they refuse to say what it is. "Effort" is not
an excuse either since they even replied to him - but with something
unprofessional while still leaving out the reason for no good reason that I
can think of. You can even mask it behind a more fuzzy reason if you think the
specific reason is not good enough to be made public, but they did not even
make the attempt.

> _then muting communications is the least offensive option_

Only after _telling him_. Something, anything - they could even make up a
polite "official" reason and keep the truth for themselves as we humans often
do, which can actually be perfectly okay. But stubbornly refusing to give any
reason at all... no, that's not okay. It would be if it was between
individuals, but not for a professional organization, especially one that the
person may not be able to ignore even if they wanted to, since he seems to
find them a valuable contribution for his professional life.

~~~
abraae
Disagree.

A while ago I experimented with giving job applicants honest feedback on why
they were unsuccessful - not just the old platitudes like"there were stronger
candidates".

Big mistake. When you reject people, they really really want to dig in, know
why and then refute or try to overturn that.

~~~
slavik81
The platitude lacks detail, but you're still giving truthful feedback.
Frankly, that's not bad. I can't tell you it's actually worthwhile for you to
do anything more, but thank you for trying.

I graduated in EE and really wanted to go into software. The manufacturing and
construction jobs I had worked in over the summers had convinced me that I did
not want to be drawing wiring diagrams all day.

I failed the interviews for the first few software development jobs I applied
to. After one I thought had gone well, I emailed the hiring manager to ask for
feedback. He told me that my technicals were ok for a new grad, but that I
fell short on the social side. That was valuable feedback. I had been very
nervous and awkward. It gave me the confidence that I actually had the talent
to pass an interview with a little more practice. I sent that guy a thank you
note, and a few months later I found my dream job in software.

Maybe I would have passed the later interview anyways. Probably. But if not,
my life would be completely different today. Just after I got the offer letter
for the software job, one of those construction companies asked me to come in
for an interview...

Thank you for trying. It doesn't always pay off, but it can make a difference.
Giving that sort of feedback is all risk and no reward, so I really appreciate
that you gave it a shot.

------
intothemild
Look, this is a Javascript conference, and these now are just super about
getting only candidates who are "Javascript famous" or have a lot of twitter
followers. I wouldn't waste your time, either applying or attending. If being
on the conference circut is what you want and in javascript then you've got
two choices.

1\. Create a Open Source library that is suuuuuuuper popular.

2\. Get a shitload of Twitter followers.

Conferences are a business, that business is selling tickets.. big names sell
tickets. It's like if I have a music festival, and I open up applications to
everyone. I'm only doing that on paper, realistically I'm only getting the
biggest musicians.. cause that sells tickets.

If conferences are your dream... Chose a different language, because JS is
toxic and the ONLY voices you will hear now are those that have already become
"Javascript Famous".

~~~
adamrezich
maybe by posting this he is doing (2.) :)

------
mlang23
20-30 submissions, in 4 years? Maybe he was blocked as a spam protection
measure?

------
sparkling
This type of drama is why i don't attend conferences anymore. It is a social
minefield.

~~~
goldenkey
DefCon and HOPE usually have an assortment of real solid talks, a few 0-days,
and new maker products to mess around with or buy. Plus there are plenty of
people who actually know their shit. I don't think you'll get the same kind of
entertainment from a bunch of coders who solely do JS. But yeah, something
about mass audience, technology, and a detached culture makes these
conferences more watery every next decade. Still worth it at least for now but
I acknowledge your point.

------
carlossless
Meh, I was hopping to see some conclusion at the end. I hope there will be
some followup.

------
_Codemonkeyism
This is the same when people message a youtuber and expect some reply - they
can't see the hundreds and thousands of messages people get and still need to
produce youtube content (or organize a conference) - "I can deal with the
mails I get, why can't they?"

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Except he _got_ a reply. Someone read his message and took time out of their
day to tell him to fuck off.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
But just after he sent a message to several people and probably on twitter and
different means, they told him - in a rude way - to stop. He probably didn't
stop and he was blocked.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
He was sending the message because he'd _already_ been blocked and didn't know
why.

------
alanfranzoni
Slightly off topic: I've always found twitter-style blocking totally
nonsensical. I mean: you've got a public account. Blocking should prevent
people from replying or tweeting at you, and from sending you DMs, maybe even
retweeting what you said (even though I'm not sure about the usefulness of
this last thing)... but why should ANYONE be prevented at just READING PUBLIC
CONTENT when LOGGED IN?

(I think the same applies for Facebook and yes, I think that's nonsensical as
well)

~~~
zem
it raises the friction for people quoting your tweets and encouraging their
followers to harass you.

~~~
alanfranzoni
Well... raises by how much? Is that really significant? By the way... that's
it.

~~~
zem
i'm betting it is - it's a classic funnel problem, where the more friction you
add to a process the more people will abandon it.

------
hbaav6
At some point you offended the wrong person, they added you to one of those
shared blocklists, and that's all, you're banned forever.

Who's to blame? I'd say you, for caring. This is the way politics works now,
and some software projects have, for some reason, joined the politics battle.
By caring you're giving them weight. Just flip them off, tell them to go fuck
themselves, and keep thinking the way you do.

It's not worth it to give up on your views on politics just to not be
ostracised by these manchilds and circus freaks. They live off attention; if
you don't pay attention to them they die. Don't give them any legitimacy,
because most of those who take these decisions don't even know how to code and
they are there to hijack the projects with their politics.

~~~
aestetix
On the one hand, it is a privately run conference and they can generally do
what they want. On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to private
blacklists, on the following grounds:

First, I understand there is an effort to create blacklists independently,
then contact conferences who have a speaker who is on them, and then publicly
shame the conference if they don't ban the speaker in question. This removes
agency from the conference to decide who they want as a speaker, and creates a
chilling effect, as nobody except the owners of the blacklist knows who is on
the list.

Second, if I am a speaker who is on a blacklist, I generally am not told about
this. Which is safer in the current political climate, to submit and risk
becoming the epicenter of some twitter drama, or to decide not to submit a
talk? How many great talks do we miss because an unaccountable arbiter of a
blacklist has decided on my behalf who gets to speak and who doesn't?

Third, the owner of the blacklist acts as the judge, jury, and executioner all
at once, with no due process. As either a conference organizer, speaker, or
member of the public, I am generally not privy to 1. why the person was
blacklisted 2. how many other people are blacklisted 3. whether or not (most
likely not) there is an appeals process so they can be removed from the
blacklist. If this sounds familiar, it's because the TSA does the same thing.

Two additional things: I realize that I am assuming some of the structures of
these systems, but it comes from a bit of experience. Second, I understand
that the blacklists extend to more than just conferences, also to contacting
employers to get people fired, or prevent them from being hired.

I'm not sure if the conference is employing their own blacklist or was
contacted by a third party, but my points still apply either way.

~~~
yAnonymous
>I am strongly opposed to private blacklists

HN uses similar approaches. Just saying. You can have tons of points, but if
some of your recent posts were unpopular for whatever reason, your account
will be limited to the point that you can't really take part in conversations.

~~~
aestetix
100% agreed. This is why allowing websites like HN, Facebook, and Twitter to
become replacements for the public town hall is a very, very bad idea.

------
hyperfekt
oh no

------
WalterBright
I would never join a club that would have me as a member.

(stolen from Groucho Marx)

------
jlebrech
that's one way to turn someone over zealous for you (a fan) into someone
overly zealous against you (a troll)

------
lowry
`@jsconfeu @0ndras I am also in the @BrendanEich fan club`

~~~
goldenkey
Plenty of HNers are also fans of Eich..the dude singlehandedly built integral
parts of the XPCOM base that Mozilla & Firefox sit on.

------
cuillevel3
You submitted 30 proposals? Maybe they are just annoyed by you spamming them?

Also, they just banned you on twitter, what's the big deal here? You can still
attend the conference.

