Illuminating Microsoft's Code of Conduct (CoC) Hypocrisy
Oppressor victimhood? Leadership claimed by the worst offenders?
SIX years ago we posted in full a transcript of an early criticism of CoCs, coming from an authoritative source who had received actual threats of violence for merely turning down a CoC. If CoCs are about manners and politeness, what sort of message does that send?
Microsoft does not like women and it hires men who lack respect for women. It moreover issues threats to women.
Recently I discussed threats sent to me a month ago (the word "threat" was used by the debt-saddled lawyers, working for a man in Texas, who probably still lives with his dad, most likely unemployed).
For the record:
1. Any such pre-action letter is designed to scare and silence me (this goes back to 2021; they just love doing this - a power trip), maybe even deny me access to necessary funds in the counter-claim against MJG [1, 2].
2. They send low-quality stuff in large quantities/high paper volume. I don't need phonebooks of printouts of my own articles. I can access those just find on any Web-connected PC. They reckon page count can magically compensate for the lack of actual merit.
3. To be clear, it's a matter of official records that in Mr. Graveley's case there is serial occurrence of abuse against women. The theme of abusing women may extend to what they did to my wife. MJG goes to technical conferences in pursuit of sex, according to himself, and Graveley made some horrible statements about women and even gagged them, literally.
4. For facts that I am merely reporting or exposing, I don't deserve this legal warfare. In a saner world, I'd be rewarded/awarded for the work.
5. This is a public interest matter as it put at peril any remaining notion of freedom to report on misconduct, at least in the UK. This is why at least 3 NGOs are now keeping abreast of this SLAPP.
As I said before, several times in fact (and as recently as yesterday), I will not capitulate because this is a fight for women's rights and a fight for the voice of female victims. Aggressive pigs with addiction problems do not belong in the IT scene; they're too dangerous to colleagues.
The important aspect here is, Microsoft employed this person when this happened and the "guns for hire" do not deny that there's a third party subsidising the SLAPPs. Their aim all along was to censor and do reputation laundering along with the censorship. This is "cover-up", this isn't about accuracy.
Techrights will win this legal battle. When it does, it'll send legal bills to the abusive men. They might not be able to pay these (they're also sheltering themselves in the US; how very convenient), but that's a matter of principles. Then we'll pursue legal reform in the UK, sheltered by politicians. Generally speaking, no politician wants to be on the side of stranglers. █