How else would you codify what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour?

Is it just arbitrary? Do you just depend on more people enforcing their views out to stop harassment? If so, then why not codify it?

I think you're saying that people who harass should be able to be removed absent a code of conduct. I agree. However, harassment isn't always the overt act you may be picturing, it can be more subtle. Code of Conducts give a single canonical state for what's considered acceptable, but more importantly, give organizers something tangible to point to when there is a violation. In addition to that, they inform people (even the harassed, who may not have considered what's happening to them harassment!) of what I'd acceptable.

As a white, male engineer, I haven't ever found a need for codes of conduct because I've had the privilege of never having been harassed. This isn't the case for all groups, so it's best to have one.

> If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem

How many conferences did you run before CoC's became popular?

Cue the cries of "I broke no rules!" when someone is "gotten rid of" without a CoC.

They're meant as a reminder for people who actually read them, but otherwise they're meant as a list for enforcement. They're something to point to as "you knew the rules - that's why we're removing that person". That's why in this case the affected person complained about the CoC using very ambiguous rules that were up for personal interpretation.

And, indeed, the tech industry has had and continues to have a deeper problem.

If you need a system of written laws that apply to everyone what you have is a deeper problem

This is certainly true, but how else would you propose solving the deeper problem?

One option is to designate someone or some group as arbiters / benevolent dictators, and have the rule of "If so-and-so decides you're making the place worse, you're not welcome." It's certainly effective. But it exacerbates Jeremy Howard's complaint - which is not so much about CoCs per se as about the group of people who enforced them and the way in which they did so. I don't think getting rid of CoCs will really solve that problem.

One option is to have a closed or invitation-only group - but that's at odds with the goals of many communities. (And it doesn't reliably solve the problem, it just makes it less likely you'd run into it.)