more cuck for Barack - Judge Jeanine dishes out another serve

[John Newman]

> 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.
> 
> 
>