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