(Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for "homophobia".) chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content. I wish you could be a little more specific. Harrashing email and excessive cross-posting in violation of each UseNet group charter is not censorship.
If ISP's censored flames (harrasments, whatever) then we might as well call every ISP AOL.
If someone sends a gay an email saying "I will kill you. Look out for the next gay pride parade" that's is legitimate ground for action.
What if it was a joke, or a false threat?
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case. What is wrong selling privacy for money?
It usually involves making it shitty.
Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP" because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content, while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor content. What a pathological liar. I suppose you can back up your claim with documentation. What court document are you referring as evidence that Sameer Parekh is a pathological liar?
None is necessary. Parekh is a liar, and just a general tool of c2.net.
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Anonymous wrote:
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in bending over, which is usually the case. What is wrong selling privacy for money?
It usually involves making it shitty.
Oh yeah, that's the way free enterprise works... if you make your product shitty, your customers will pay more for it! Hey maybe if I do a crappy job, my employer will pay me more! ______________________________________________________________________ Jon Galt e-mail: jongalt@pinn.net website: http://www.pinn.net/~jongalt/ PGP public key available on my website. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. ______________________________________________________________________
What is wrong selling privacy for money?
It usually involves making it shitty.
Oh yeah, that's the way free enterprise works... if you make your product shitty, your customers will pay more for it! Hey maybe if I do a crappy job, my employer will pay me more!
Erm, no. Some businesses put out shoddy encryption products, regardless.
lord_buttmonkey@juno.com (Matthew L Bennett) writes:
Oh yeah, that's the way free enterprise works... if you make your product shitty, your customers will pay more for it! Hey maybe if I do a crappy job, my employer will pay me more!
Erm, no.
Some businesses put out shoddy encryption products, regardless.
In most industries, some vendors can get away with selling a shoddy product/ service because their cost of good sold is typically less, and they can charge a lower price, some some buys will go for it.
Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org> writes:
(Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for "homophobia".) I wish you could be a little more specific. Harrashing email and excessive cross-posting in violation of each UseNet group charter is not censorship.
If ISP's censored flames (harrasments, whatever) then we might as well call e
ISPs that pull users' plugs for "spamming" (which Chris Lewis et al define as exsessive or inappropriate cross-posting or content) are obviously engaging in content censorship. Any ISP that how an "acceptable use policy" that mentions "spam" in disparaging terms is full of shit and should be boytcotted, blacklisted, and DOSed out ob business. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (4)
-
Anonymous -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jon Galt -
lord_buttmonkey＠juno.com