more cuck for Barack - Judge Jeanine dishes out another serve
John Newman
jnn at synfin.org
Tue Dec 13 15:47:49 PST 2016
> On Dec 13, 2016, at 6:21 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
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.
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.
>
>> 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