Guys are using OpenCon CoC model with anonymous reporting policies:
I am citing from there:
Anything that makes someone feel uncomfortable could be deemed harassment.
Now I am starting to worry about my right for freedom of speech, honestly. In case my radical opinion about publishers’ business model can be treated by them as attendees as “uncomfortable”. Strange politics.
Wow, that’s to really stretch it as far as it can go I believe… 
This is incredible! Before the conference started I asked about this feature in the CoC. I am journalist and have a radical opinion about publishers’ business model, which of course is about a good intent. But it seems that Invest for Open is not about freedom of speech that is why they silenced and censured me. Created a Twitter thread to tell the story. For those not using Twitter:
I got silenced and censured from the conference organised by @InvestInOpen (hopefully, not banned yet
but who knows). I cannot express my opinion there anymore because it is “uncostructive and disruptive”, so I will do it here. #freedomofspeech #libertedexpression This is my first conference as an #OpenScience activist and an independent journalist, I’m not afraid to express my radical opinion about the current state of science communication and publishers’ toxic business model. I would not loose my job or reputation. And moreover, I do not work for publishers
#славатобібоже Of course, before I would chat, as a conference attendee, I checked out @InvestInOpen ’s Code of Conduct which mentions “Anything that makes someone feel uncomfortable could be deemed harassment”. Literally, ANYTHING. This potentially means that even a photograph of me holding #StrejkFörÖppenVetenskap poster I put as a profile picture can hurt someone’s feelings and needs to be anonymously reported. Because on someone’s opinion my intent was not good. I’m sorry, guys, which reported against me anonymously or did not like me but my opinion is about the system and not about you personally. As I mentioned in the disclaimer before the conference started I will behave as a professional journalist. Journalists work for truth. If truth is hurting you, I have nothing to add. Coming back to the Code of Conduct, @InvestInOpen appreciates anonymous reporting. I do not understand what is a purpose of this anonymity? To report those you do not like? Reminded me Soviet complaint practices… No matter was a person against or not socialist idea, if his/her opinion, behavior and even appearance did not rely on someone’s will, a person would be reported. This is how the censorship machine started. Did you hear about GULAG? I am a proud descendant of Ukrainian Cossacks with Bulgarian origin. I am French citizen with a right for freedom of speech. I am a warrior and a revolutionary, I am hard talk journalist. This is the way I work and express myself. Did you hear about #JeSuisSamuel? Probably, not. Which makes me think that @InvestInOpen is not about racial and cultural diversity and inclusion at all. And certainly not about open dialogue.
As I mentioned in Twitter thread, I have a conversation about the CoC and claimed that I have a radical opinion about publishers’ business model and will behave professionally, as a professional journalist. Because explanations from organisers about “good intent” were certainly unclear.
I will not bring here all the messages I sent in the conference chat which was certainly very bad organised: a lot of Slack channels with unclear purpose, Zoom chat which was first organised for Q&A but suddenly become a dialogue between people, literally, a CHAOS. So, I needed to write both in Slack and in Zoom to be sure that my question and opinion are heard by everybody. The conference started with two university library members (USA) which were talking about negotiations with Elsevier and Elsevier’s abilities to approach to faculty members and convince them about deals (I called it agressive marketing and proposed to ban any professional and personal contact with Elsevier because they can use any methods such as corruption and harassment). After there was a panel with Open Science Infrastructure initiatives, they were interesting and promising, my comment was:
The story continues. After I posted the whole public conversation about problems in InvestInOpen’s Code of Conduct, I got immediately banned from their Slack. Luckily, made all important screenshots.
Wrote a thread about the company SPARC which funded Open Con that banned Jon Tennant, will be happy if you will share this with your colleagues:
Banning people from #OpenScience organisations is a normal practice. Funny coincidence: usually it comes from communities linked to US-based @SPARC_NA, a company which unites university libraries that bring money to commercial publishers. A loooot of money💰 During last 22 years @SPARC_NA promotes making scientific results publicly available in #OpenAccess. After 22 (!) years, US libraries are still paying millions of
to publishers. While scientists are forced to pay thousands of
It is all started in 2018 when #OpenScience activist Jon Tennant received a PRIVATE ban for sexual harassment from the @Open_Con conference funded by @SPARC_NA. A disclaimer: I never met Jon, I did not know him personally, my opinion is based on facts and witnesses. After that in 2019 @Protohedgehog got a PUBLIC ban which @Open_Con posted on Twitter that was followed with a massive mob. People were enjoying it
. But no other explanation or proof was provided by @Open_Con. Jon’s reputation was destroyed. Almost in the same time in 2019 Jon got another PRIVATE ban from @force11rescomm community. Jon’s sister @Rebeccatennan10 suggested this ban came from his conference presentation where he publicly critised commercial publishing company Springer Nature. Jon never hided his opinion on publishers and on the system. He was sure that all the problems in sci communication were coming from publishing oligarchy. He organised a lot of initiatives starting from educational and repository projects finishing by complaints against Elsevier. @OpenScienceMOOC which Jon founded was one of a very promising #OpenScience communities. But after he left it and tragically died, this community is no longer active as it was before. Sadly, as a new member of the steering committee, I can confirm it. A lot of Jon’s friends, supporters and family were asking for truth and evidence from @Open_Con. Of course, it hurt their reputation. I think they needed rebranding, and while @OpenScienceMOOC is no longer popular due to the sex scandal and Jon’s death, they can occupy a niche. From 2019 @SPARC_NA started to support @InvestInOpen, a new community which gathers funders to invest in Open Infrastructures. Investments💰look attractive for people because none wants to fund #OpenScience initiatives. You know, money helps to get people together easily. And maybe @InvestInOpen could be a nice community if they would not adopt @Open_Con’s code of conduct which seems to be made to silence unwanted people by appreciating anonymous reporting, imaginary comfort and a very manipulative definition of harassment. The same thing happened to me: @InvestInOpen censured me because my opinion on publishers was unconstructive and destructive (see unwanted). They are not ready to welcome questions about publishers’ toxic influence and agressive marketing. I could not imagine what will happen if there will be not me alone questionning this but hundred independent journalists hard-talkers. They also will be banned from @InvestInOpen? All together
? #BanMeEverywhere #FreedomOfSpeech #OpenScience Then great, this hundred dissenters will appear soon - they will storm your offices, also massively create “uncomfortable conditions” for your bosses and… destroy your reputation until your parasitic structure collapses. Get ready!
Guys, @SPARC_NA, if you are creating elitist money-laundering closed communities just mention about it. Do not use words “open”, “transparent”, “fair”, “diversity” etc. They are certainly not about you and are reserved for others. #OpenScience #OpenScienceMafia
