On Dec 13, 2016, at 7:02 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:47:49 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
I don't support censorship, all your claims to the contrary ;) At the same time, I don't support people telling me how I can configure my own software on my own hardware whose network traffic I pay for.
I "dully" note you seemt to have ignored everything else I said.
I was curious what your take on the "thought experiment" was. I find the issue maybe a little more nuanced, but I'm not interested in a flame war (at all), so I was happy to hear your take. Dully noted ;)
For instance, I don't consider locking my mail server down so it's not an open relay to be censorship (some people do - see toad.com). Trying to enforce software configurations I'm not interested in, on my shit, under any pretense, is fascism.
As long as your hardware doens't carry other people's speech, fine.
The facscist/conservtive dictum "my network, my fascist rules for speech" remains just that however. A fascist dictum.
Anyway, I agree that some traffic can be classified as outright spam, like, say, advertising posted by bots, but blocking that sort of traffic is not really what's been discussed here.