schneier's concentration camp

[John Young]

The purpose of cpunks is to host aggressive messages others
with thin skins, reputations, profits, ideologies and egos to protect
delete.

Which may explain why deleters appear absent here (many are ghosts)
but do lurk or have lurkers and protection agents watching for slightest
challenge, keeping lists for covert anonymized retribution -- for worst
offenses, extermination -- following the lead of nations and religions.

Moderated fora, Wikipedia the prime example, Tor a slight one, cannot
abide misbehavior or funding will be squeezed or shut down. Govs, NGOs.
coms, are moderated to assure survival of banality as cover for brutality.

Celebrity is moderation, and might be better called tampering.


At 11:09 AM 7/16/2016, you wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="jI2MW7vW1fHw2QRI2kFPwN2k8GBwdAMjH"
>From: Rayzer <rayzer at riseup.net>
>To: cypherpunks at cpunks.org
>Message-ID: <578A4E1D.9070001 at riseup.net>
>Subject: Re: schneier's concentration camp
>References: <57893eb1.822dc80a.fdcf8.19a9 at mx.google.com>
>  <5789A364.9060509 at riseup.net> <20160716031608.GO16437 at x220-a02>
>  <5789ADAB.5030001 at riseup.net> <20160716051958.GP16437 at x220-a02>
>In-Reply-To: <20160716051958.GP16437 at x220-a02>
>
>
>
>On 07/15/2016 10:19 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > Fact: Schnier deleted Juan's post.
>
>
>Fact. Juan is a TROLL who couldn't possibly have anything rational to
>add to anything Schnier posts.
>
>First ad hom and he's gone most anywhere anytime anyway.
>
>Tough darts. No one's got the time for spew.
>
>I have ongoing problems with the local indymedia redacting my comments
>because they don't adhere to their unfathomable ideology that I can't
>quite identify, so I simply don't bother posting there.
>
>What was it someone said about freedom of the press is OWNING the press?
>
>If Juan has something to say that Bruce Schnier doesn't want to hear or
>allow in his comments he should start a blog. Write an open letter and
>use all those SEO tricks to get his post noticed by the same people who
>read Schnier.
>
>The fallacious assumption you're making here is that Schnier owes him a
>soapbox to respond, IF what Juan does can be considered 'responding'. No
>one owes anyone shit.
>
>Rr
>
>