Does Stack Exchange have an ethical responsibility to address global discrimination and marginalisation?

Stack Exchange has been through similar episodes of turmoil throughout the years, many before my time. To make a long story short, we've been here before - with see SOPA, net neutrality, #LoveOverflow and more. All of those cases saw plenty of discussion about whether or not Stack Exchange is the right venue to promote/talk about/stand up for these. We've been here before.

Discrimination, marginalization, etc. is a general social issue at heart, not a technical one - and so it's tempting to file it away with #LoveOverflow and the decision to recognize a United States Supreme Court ruling, as something that doesn't directly impact the site¹. On the other hand, the reception a user gets on Stack Exchange is very relevant to the existence and life of the site itself - and so, like SOPA, like net neutrality, it becomes a problem that, to some extent, we have to think about.

Let me quote Joel for a second:

Nevertheless, there is a difference between promoting "all kinds of awareness ribbons of various colors" (which I wouldn't want) and opposing a law that threatens the very site itself.

. . .

This is not a random social cause that we happen to support -- this is the internet we're trying to defend. Making the internet a better place is the #1 goal of Stack Exchange.

Yes, there is discrimination and barriers to entry against certain groups on the Internet. Yes, some of these same obstacles exist on Stack Exchange. Yes, it is in the interest of us all to resolve them insofar as they pertain to Stack Exchange - not just from an ethical standpoint, but a practical one, because if parts of the userbase don't feel welcome here, that's hurting the community as a whole. That means we're doing something wrong.

I'll make this a bit more concrete, and talk about, as an example, harassment. Street harassment - including, but not limited to, catcalling, following, etc. - is a global problem, especially for women. I think, in fact, that many of those (myself included) who have not experienced it directly might underestimate its severity². It's a problem, period. Does it affect many users of Stack Exchange? Yes. Is it an issue directly related to Stack Exchange? No.

Now switch the venue to a post on a Stack Exchange site. Say a user who appears to be female writes a question or answer and receives comments of a sexual nature (yes, this happens; yes, I've seen it). Just as in the case of catcalling on the street, someone who uses Stack Exchange is affected by harassment. The difference? Because this behavior happens on the site, SE (both the community and Stack Overflow, the company) has facilitated it, indirectly and likely inadvertently.

If you make and run a platform which some people use to harass or put down others, then yes, I'd argue it's your ethical duty to fix it. If you use the platform, then I'd argue that you have some skin in the game, and while you shouldn't feel obligated to fix it, you should absolutely help if you can. As I said before, it's an issue that affects the community, and Stack Overflow (again, the company) should indeed step in to fix it.

I know that Stack Overflow's efforts are just beginning, from what I've read and heard from Community Managers and others involved. There was the blog post that kicked this all off, and the Stack Overflow Inclusion Project (official survey mentioned in the blog) will take further steps. Efforts to solve the problems of discrimination on Stack Exchange might take an array of forms - and I don't know what they'll turn out to be. Maybe that includes educating users somehow; maybe that includes . . . whatever. We'll see.

I tried to justify acting to solve problems based on (for instance) harassment in comments, but I kinda skipped over saying why something like catcalling isn't, in my opinion, a job for Stack Overflow, even though it affects Stack Exchange users. That's because I'm struggling to put my argument into words. At the moment, it's basically that catcalling isn't something Stack Overflow can fix. Can we educate users about it? Yes. Could we try to galvanize mass action? I suppose (though I'd oppose it). But in the end, it's something that exists in a separate sphere, a sphere in which Stack Overflow has little control. Stack Overflow is the authority, the head honcho, on what happens on Stack Exchange. But they're not when it comes to problems that exist off the site, in a different sphere of life entirely.

Maybe efforts to fight, say, sexism on the network will inadvertently spill over and do some good offline. It could happen. I'd be happy if it does. But sticking to what we know and can control is a strategy that will, I think, get us far on issues affecting the Stack Exchange network.

In the end, I think that Stack Overflow should avoid trying to galvanize folks when it comes to issues - political, social, cultural - that don't affect the site. But I think that when it comes to social issues on the network itself - well, yeah, there's definitely a moral imperative there.

^{1 Though it certainly has indirect effects, on many of those who use, moderate and run the network.
2 This is a case where looking at statistics and, more importantly, listening to those who have experienced it can paint a fuller picture.}

Not an employee so everything I write will be so much irrelevant but here goes anyways:

I think this ... won't work over here. You've seen what happened with your past posts on SO meta, even if they've been almost aggressively unoffensive and deferent. You've seen what happened with the last MSE post about Trump's executive order. You'll see what'll happen with this post.

It is clear to me that there is a very sizable contingent of the active and vocal userbase that has absolutely no interest whatsoever in entertaining social causes. They don't want this on their Q&A site, and they'll fight tooth and nail to not have it there.

Where is the line between what Stack Exchange does as a site and a community and social justice?

This is where the sad state of affairs of current broader societal discourse will become apparent. By using that word, you've just made hundreds of enemies. The current climate is so charged that you'll probably find a lot of people who are desperately seeking for somewhere where social issues aren't a topic and will fight to keep it that way.

Ultimately I think that it isn't stack's place to be an activist entity out to fight injustice. It is a Q/A site, and the only way to maintain the contributor base in all of its viewpoint diversity (even if a bunch of the viewpoints in that are those you despise to your core and want nothing to do with) is to strictly not discuss it.

There have been several excellent responses here, but there is one point (excellently addressed by @Shog9 as well)

Does Stack Exchange have an ethical responsibility to address global discrimination and marginalisation?

No, except in the sense that we are part of the world, and if we allow our little portion of the world to devolve into a cesspool then we are failing. I don't care if this is supposed to be a place of cut and dried factual answers to questions, you cannot remove the human element of it.

I suppose you could say "humans are humans, you can't control what people think/feel". Maybe true, but would you apply that logic to a toddler? Hate is a learned concept. While we may not be able to combat and educate people differently worldwide, we can certainly combat it in our own part of the world.

I spend a large portion of my free time both learning and teaching people how to defend themselves from physical assault. If I can do the same for an online community that I enjoy being a part of, then I am a happy camper. If I can show a user that they matter and they are welcome no matter their particular difference, I have done my job. If all I can do is change the attitude of one person, that is a success. If we all do that, it spreads. Why spend time worrying about what our "global duty" is, when we can spend that time helping to change the parts we can change?

Will it be easy? Probably not. But the best things are never easy.

Does the network have a responsibility to educate the community?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves?

Be nice as policy has one distinct advantage: Everyone understands it and it is very hard to argue against it. It does not depend on religion, skin color, gender or whatever distinction humans are able to think of.

What exactly should be educated? Is that by any chance your own very personal view about what is right and that you think is self-evident? And you also think just by coincidence that other people are somehow uneducated (why else educate them) and are doing the things they are doing because nobody else taught them otherwise? If people are getting told what they are supposed to do, they will accept it gladly and think: "Man, that idea never came to me?"

You very rightly said that Stack Exchange is a reflection of the world. Did you ever research what happens when such changes are demanded in the real world and what history tells us about it?

We seek an order of things in which all the base and cruel passions are enchained, all the beneficent and generous passions are awakened by the laws; where ambition becomes the desire to merit glory and to serve our country; where distinctions are born only of equality itself; where the citizen is subject to the magistrate, the magistrate to the people, and the people to justice; where our country assures the well-being of each individual, and where each individual proudly enjoys our country's prosperity and glory; where every soul grows greater through the continual flow of republican sentiments, and by the need of deserving the esteem of a great people; where the arts are the adornments of the liberty which ennobles them and commerce the source of public wealth rather than solely the monstrous opulence of a few families. In our land we want to substitute morality for egotism, integrity for formal codes of honor, principles for customs, a sense of duty for one of mere propriety, the rule of reason for the tyranny of fashion, scorn of vice for scorn of the unlucky; self-respect for insolence, grandeur of soul for vanity, love of glory for the love of money, >>>>>> good people in place of good society.<<<<< We wish to substitute merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glamor, the charm of happiness for sensuous boredom, the greatness of man for the pettiness of the great, a people who are magnanimous, powerful, and happy, in place of a kindly, frivolous, and miserable people—which is to say all the virtues and all the miracles of the republic in place of all the vices of the monarchy[..]

Does that not sound good? A vision of mankind to be followed?

The text comes from "On Political Morality" from Maximilien Robespierre during the height of the "Reign of Terror".

Now Stack Exchange does not chop heads off...this example must be surely an excessive exaggeration? Fine, tell me one single successful attempt where the people finally got rid of their vices.

Where is the line between what Stack Exchange does as a site and a community and social justice? [...] In all honesty, management needs to take some clear control over this situation.

Absolutely, the very first thing people are calling for when something does not run according to their view is a leader. This leader should finally lay down the law. If parts of the community does not act as it is good for the community(!), we need rules for the community against those parts of the community.

Reasonable, isn't it? So those rules and education take place.

What happens next is that some people are still making trouble. Because trouble invites drama, and those people are silently removed or people committed to the cause give them the silent treatment. So those people go away. Nice. What is irritating is that the members are dwindling...

This happened with Atheism Plus. It was an attempt to introduce feminism, anti-racism and social justice into the skeptic community. How could this be failing? PZ Myers was a driving force, he had one of the most visited sites, he set up his very own community, and he removed everyone who he did not see fit for the task.

As the article demonstrates, the whole responsibility for the failure are misogynistic assholes. While it may explain that those never joined the community, isn't it strange that the majority of skeptics did not remain and embraced Atheism Plus? Easy to explain: Too many skeptics are misogynistic assholes. It is not our fault, no, no, no: We had the very best intentions. It could not have anything to do with our movement and our urge to teach people. Our conscience is clean, and those are valuable goals.

Why does this remind me of so many real world incidences? Those socialist states were workers' paradise; how could people want to leave that? Go over the border? There is only one explanation: they are either spies or traitors. Bad, bad people.

Fairness and treating people well is one thing. You can demand that users do not show unacceptable behavior to each other. But trying to change minds and impose own worldviews by force always, always backfires.

A personal note:

I am hearing frustration in your voice. It is the reaction of people which believe that humans desperately need to follow a specific path; they only...need...a nudge in the right direction. I am disappointed, so other with more power should repair the situation. When this fails (and it will fail), they are always growing bitter and resentful. Their vice is that they have too much trust in humans.

The cure is working for changes and to be happy if changes occur. In a former version I added: "but to never expect or demand them", but as Nicol Bolas pointed out, this falls definitely too short. So I state more precisely that you should avoid a hard-set goal to avoid the feeling of failure if this goal is not reached (but the situation moved in this direction).

This seems to be the source of your primary complaint:

This question Does Stack Exchange really want to conflate newbies with women/people of color? (the title is self explanatory) raises some important issues. Although the blame is placed firmly at the feet of the new comers to the site posting crappy questions, in typical Stack Overflow meta style.

Now it comes (probably should be no surprise, as Stack Overflow is the flagship site) that this type of hostility is not limited to Stack Overflow.

However, you have not actually attempted to state why this is bad behaviour on SO's part. If you want to declare that SO has an ethics problem, you must be at least able to disagree with what it's currently doing. Enforcing good standards of question is not an ethical issue when it comes to a Q+A site, the tech industry, or the rest of the world in general.

And for the record, the reason why "Social (justice) Issues" are held in so low regard is because how hypocritical they are.

If you declare that a certain group must be allowed to post low quality questions, then you are asserting that said group is less capable of asking high quality questions. With new users this is obvious- they simply don't know the rules. With all the "minority group" rubbish, it's surrendering the soft bigotry of low expectations. Don't fall for it! SO's standards don't change based on the poster's race or sex or whatever the next fad is.

When an issue divides a community, the power base in that community must make a decision of which side (or sides, as issues can have many sides and some or most may overlap or differ in a variety of ways) it will support.

Whatever Stack Exchange, its community moderators or official blog or Meta FAQ, may say, the power base is Stack Exchange the company. The user community is not the highest rank on the ladder at all. We can say we want and need and dislike all manner of things, but the decision rests with Stack Exchange.

The power base cannot be neutral on a topic, because neutrality is to support the status quo, whatever it happens to be. When the issue is that this status quo has negative impacts, many on individuals and some quite significantly on groups and a few on the whole community, the sides are a variation on "change the status" or "leave it as it is".

We've already got questions and discussion galore about the existence of the issues. Suffice it to say, there's a lot of evidence of the problems and it is met with varying levels of acceptance or attention. I'm not going to explain (yet again) how the ability to deny the existence of a privilege is one of the benefits of that privilege, or why people get upset when they're called sir despite obviously being non-male/non-gendered at all, or why using cultural references to make fun of someone who won't recognise the reference and therefore that they're being insulted is definitely Not Being Nice, or the problem behind not just using formatting which is actively harmful but arguing against the use of a better alternative.

There are hyperbolic posts already that put not just action against these problems, but even the idea that something should said and done about them on the level of fascism. If you're thinking that, you're being a dick. Nobody is forced to use Stack Exchange. Anybody can leave whenever they want - even users with years of posting and tens of thousands of rep, even users with moderator positions, can just stop coming here.

And yes, that does cut both ways. When a community is divided by an issue, there will be a conflict between the many sides. Without intervention by the power base, one of those sides (or a loose collection of similar sides) will eventually come to dominate; the others will be pushed down and out. And without intervention by the power base on behalf of the weaker side, that dominance will continue to be in the favour of the sides which already align with the status quo.

Stack Exchange doesn't need to do anything to address discrimination, no. But it does need to recognise the effect that will have, and it does need to accept the consequences of that choice. Because it is a choice. To do anything except take the side of those who already get pushed down is to let them keep being pushed down, or worse, join in the pushing themselves.

It is going to come to a choice between which groups of users they want to keep. The ones being pushed down or the ones who do the pushing? I think it's not obvious which of those they should pick, because I'm not their accountant or lawyer or business manager or sysadmin or PR agent, but I think it is extremely obvious what will happen based on the one they do pick, because it's already happening now.