more cuck for Barack - Judge Jeanine dishes out another serve
juan
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 15:21:04 PST 2016
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:06:59 -0500
John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 2016, at 2:49 PM, juan wrote:
> > Oh yes. Moderation is not literally "outright censorship". It is
> > "outright censorship" with a different name. No doubt the
> > change of name makes it wholly different.
> >
>
> A thought experiment: you have a group chat, irc or XMPP or
> whatever. There are a few dozen people or so in the group (doesn't
> really matter the number), it's a technical discussion about
> programming... <whatever> - some collaborative open source project.
>
> By your standards, is it censorship to kick ban a troll(s)
Yes it is. By the way, it's quite clear that the term troll can
be used to mean anything. Just look at arch-trolls like rayzer
or quinn whining about trolls.
And at the 'technical' level
1) Last time I checked IRC had an /ignore nick command.
2) I would have thought people in this list would be searching
for decentralized, censorship-resistent systems, not the
opposite in which an 'admin' has somehow gotten divine powers
and rights.
> that keeps
> joining the chat, talks totally off topic bullshit, disrupting actual
> productive conversation/work ?
>
> Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks
I don't pretend anything. It seems clear that you are arguing
for censorship *in general*. You can add the proviso that you
don't want censorship in this list which is fine and a
start, but you are still arguing for censorship. Or analyzing
censorship by means of thought experients =P
> - I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
It is an awful fit for any communication medium.
>
>
>
>
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list