Ooof. I'd hate to be around that guy if he was organizing a fundraiser. If he's passionate about a cause and notices that you didn't donate as much as he had hoped, does it give him the right to publicly shame you for it? It doesn't matter if it's for a good cause or not, that's 100% harassment.

His tweet wasn't meant to encourage ppl to join his cause, his tweet was targeted at one person and meant to solicit others to attack. I wouldn't be surprised if FB already had complaints about that Dail guy being abrasive and difficult to work with.

Nobody's going to spell it out. If you announce someone doesn't support <popular movement> as much as you'd expect them to on a public forum, that will likely cause backlash. In that case either you did it in purpose, or caused it by not thinking of consequences of your actions.

That seems to imply that all public disagreement about a popular or controversial movement is "public shaming" and thus that you would oppose all such discussion.

The difference here is the discussion/post itself is almost irrelevant. Anyone can do it. You just can't do it to a coworker without work-policy based consequences.

If you want to do public shaming and cause backlash, nobody can stop you.

You must be new to twitter. The whole thing is a solicitation for others to attack.

That’s simply not true. It is a mistake to project your coarse impression of Twitter onto every individual tweet.

Just like it is a mistake to project every instance of subtle, overt, or systemic racism on all white people but here we are, talking about privilege differences between classes in the first world while the third is pointing and laughing at our stupidity.

Publicly shaming the guy for not wanting to take a public stance? Sounds pretty close to harassment the way these Twitter brigades can go.

Publicly disclosing a private conversation? No, not really.

Yes, it was a private reply, which the facebook employee then outed publicly on twitter.

>I asked @Vjeux to follow @reactjs's lead and add a statement of support to Recoil's docs and he privately refused, claiming open source shouldn't be political.

That is 100% not ok.

Why is that not okay? Do you think that is sensitive private information? Or do you believe that no content of any private conversation should ever be publicized?

They could be privately supportive of Black Lives Matter, donate to bail funds, spread the word under anonymized accounts, etc. But they might also work/live in a deeply conservative office/neighborhood. Forcing their hand at going public with their support could get them fired, or get their ass kicked the next time they go to the bar or get pulled over by a cop.

And "find another job, then" isn't always practical, especially with marriage+kids+debt.

And yes, you should always ask for consent before making a private reply public.

I'm supportive of Black Lives Matter, but I don't think what OP did was ok.

> They could be privately supportive of Black Lives Matter...

Of course they could. This person didn't claim anything to the contrary. The complaint was not about the webmaster's personal beliefs, but rather about the webmaster's decision in their capacity as webmaster.

> Forcing their hand at going public with their support could get them fired

The request was to change the website of an open source project, not for the webmaster to personally declare anything about their beliefs. Of course it is possible (though unlikely) that there is some threat to the webmaster's safety or livelihood that would prevent them from taking certain actions regarding the project's website, but in that case, the responsibility over the project's website should probably be more evenly distributed.