Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8

Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8

[David]

 While there isn't a formal set of rules relating to postings there is
 a set of guidelines on the following link:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

 Also though I don't want to put words in John Sullivan's mouth as it
 were Daniel Pocock appears, in my personal opinion, to have deviated
 from these guidelines to such a degree that were I in John Sullivan's
 shoes I might have felt it necessary to take
 moderator/administrator action such as extra moderation by holding
 Daniel's postings up so that they might be vetted or even Daniel's
 removal from this list. Calling such actions "censorship" is a very
 extreme reaction IMHO as the very same core points could have been
 made in a less excitable manner without potential breaching of the
 above linked guidelines and thus without triggering any negative
 actions.

 John Sullivan may, or may not, wish to comment on this but the above
 is simply my own personal take on the situation.

David Nash
>

 Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:48:45 -0500
> From: quiliro@riseup.net
> To: "libreplanet-discuss" <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
> Subject: Re: Orwellian ?
> Message-ID: <e31db592d8b4d1023547c828f0404ef7.squirrel@sm.riseup.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
> 
> On Wed, October 9, 2019 8:34 pm, Deb Nicholson wrote:
> >    Folks should make sure they aren't posting to the shadow threads
> > that were sent to addresses someone scraped and posted to
> > independently.  
> 
> You mean that it is the wrong address they wrote to to? Please answer
> my question. I mean not to hurt. I would just like to know if there is
> censorship on this list and if so, why would it be. Note English is
> not my mother language. So I might be using inappropriate words. I am
> sorry if that is the case.


_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8)

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 472 bytes --]

David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
> Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO as the very same core points could have been made in a less excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.

That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary available to me suggest it.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8)

[David]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300
Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:

> David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
> > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO
> > as the very same core points could have been made in a less
> > excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
> > guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.  
> 
> That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to
> form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary
> available to me suggest it.


Making a point can be done in many ways. You can do it with
name-calling, with assuming bad faith and other such breaches of the
guidelines or without such things but the point remains the same be it
that it is made with breaches of the guidelines or without.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8)

[David]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:10:25 +0100
David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300
> Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:  
> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO
> > > as the very same core points could have been made in a less
> > > excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
> > > guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.    
> > 
> > That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to
> > form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary
> > available to me suggest it.  
> 
> 
> Making a point can be done in many ways. You can do it with
> name-calling, with assuming bad faith and other such breaches of the
> guidelines or without such things but the point remains the same be it
> that it is made with breaches of the guidelines or without.


 Sorry to double send but, on review, I think a bit more explanation is
 needed.

 What I'm really saying is that censorship isn't an absolute term in
 that the points in question can avoid censorship, or hit it head on,
 depending on how they are put. Daniel was triggering
 blocking/censorship head on by stating his points in a way which
 breached the guidelines on many levels yet he could have made the
 exact same points, and avoided being prevented from posting, had he
 merely stated these points in a different manner so the points
 themselves were not at issue and did not cause the blocking. I would
 say that blocking/censorship does not cause me an issue when it is
 done because the chosen method of stating of the key points has
 incurred problems rather that the key points themselves being
 blocked/censored.

 It would have been a rather trivial matter for Daniel to have stated
 his key points in a non-controversial way yet it was his choice not
 to do so thus the repercussions are his problem, and his fault, rather
 than something to get overly worked up about.

 I hope I've clarified this for you now but if I can be of more
 assistance please let me know.

 Regards,

David

 BTW I've admin'd and moderated more sites (including some MS owned
 ones back in the day to my eternal shame) than I care to remember so
 I'm rather an old hand at this kind of thing and, being in my 60's
 probably a good deal older than the average here.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8)

[Adam Van Ymeren]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1843 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:

> David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
> > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO as the
> very same core points could have been made in a less excitable manner
> without potential breaching of the above linked guidelines and thus without
> triggering any negative actions.
>
> That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to form
> rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary available to
> me suggest it.
>

There is a difference between censorship and moderation.  If you want a
dictionary definition:

Censor (verb) - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything
considered objectionable
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

Moderate (verb) - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression *: *observing
reasonable limit
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate

Nobody can define with absolute clarity where the distinction is.
Sometimes the situation is obvious, other times it is more nuanced.  I
don't envy the role of a moderator on an internet mailing list but I am
happy that they exist.  If libreplanet-discuss were completely un-moderated
and open to any and all trolls to spew whatever inflammatory nonsense they
wish, then it would very quickly cease to be a useful place of discussion
and I personally would unsubscribe.

It is not censorship for moderators of libreplanet-discuss to decide not to
forward your message to everyone who has joined the list.  Almost every
online community needs some level of moderation.  You are always welcome to
write and publish your opinions through you own platform, which thanks to
technology and libre software is easier today than it has ever been in
human history.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 2102 bytes --]

   On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <[1]321942@gmail.com>
   wrote:

     David <[2]postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
     > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO
     as the very same core points could have been made in a less
     excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
     guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.
     That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to
     form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary
     available to me suggest it.

   There is a difference between censorship and moderation.  If you want a
   dictionary definition:
   Censor (verb) - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything
   considered objectionable
   [3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
   Moderate (verb) - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression :
   observing reasonable limit
   [4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
   Nobody can define with absolute clarity where the distinction is.
   Sometimes the situation is obvious, other times it is more nuanced.  I
   don't envy the role of a moderator on an internet mailing list but I am
   happy that they exist.  If libreplanet-discuss were completely
   un-moderated and open to any and all trolls to spew whatever
   inflammatory nonsense they wish, then it would very quickly cease to be
   a useful place of discussion and I personally would unsubscribe.
   It is not censorship for moderators of libreplanet-discuss to decide
   not to forward your message to everyone who has joined the list.
   Almost every online community needs some level of moderation.  You are
   always welcome to write and publish your opinions through you own
   platform, which thanks to technology and libre software is easier today
   than it has ever been in human history.

References

   1. mailto:321942@gmail.com
   2. mailto:postmaster@customer-opinions.net
   3. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
   4. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

El 2019-10-10 21:05, Adam Van Ymeren escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <[1]321942@gmail.com>
>    wrote:
> 
>      David <[2]postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>      > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO
>      as the very same core points could have been made in a less
>      excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
>      guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.
>      That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to
>      form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary
>      available to me suggest it.
> 
>    There is a difference between censorship and moderation.  If you want a
>    dictionary definition:
>    Censor (verb) - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything
>    considered objectionable
>    [3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
>    Moderate (verb) - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression :
>    observing reasonable limit
>    [4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
>    Nobody can define with absolute clarity where the distinction is.
>    Sometimes the situation is obvious, other times it is more nuanced.  I
>    don't envy the role of a moderator on an internet mailing list but I am
>    happy that they exist.  If libreplanet-discuss were completely
>    un-moderated and open to any and all trolls to spew whatever
>    inflammatory nonsense they wish, then it would very quickly cease to be
>    a useful place of discussion and I personally would unsubscribe.
>    It is not censorship for moderators of libreplanet-discuss to decide
>    not to forward your message to everyone who has joined the list.
>    Almost every online community needs some level of moderation.  You are
>    always welcome to write and publish your opinions through you own
>    platform, which thanks to technology and libre software is easier today
>    than it has ever been in human history.

Who is it to be the censor? The majority? The moderator? Why would a
majority or a moderator be correct and the censored incorrect?

I think that trolls are persons that are called that way by the people
that do not want them to speak because they feel the sensation of
control loss.

If someone leaves a list because someone else thinks differently, that
person must reinforce their own self esteem by recognizing that other
peolpe's views (even if incorrect) are acceptable as their own, and not
by blocking their expression.

If you want a kind environment, you make it so, not other people.
Controlling other people does not make a better or safe environment. It
makes an oppressive environment which is in practice very unsafe.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8)

['smee via libreplanet-discuss]

The dictionary definition you gave has a couple issues. Notice that
censor is the only definition that includes examining. Moderating, in
the sense that the dictionary intends, is when people moderate
themselves, there's no examination that needs to be done (save for
internal examination) to avoid extremes of behavior. Moderators can't
avoid them, they can only censor them. Moderators are censors. People
can moderate themselves but, referring to your dictionary definition,
moderators can't actually moderate, (meaning they can't stop the other
person saying what they want to say before it is said) they censor what
is already said. It's not only the fact that it says examine, it's the
whole meaning of the word moderate. I can moderate my voice, but I
cannot moderate someone else's voice, by the normal definition and use
of the word. Online moderation is way newer than that definition.
Online moderation sometimes includes censorship.

Also, you're splitting hairs, censorship is censorship. And this is
censorship.


On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 22:05 -0400, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO
> > > as the
> > 
> > very same core points could have been made in a less excitable
> > manner
> > without potential breaching of the above linked guidelines and thus
> > without
> > triggering any negative actions.
> > 
> > That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to
> > form
> > rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary
> > available to
> > me suggest it.
> > 
> 
> There is a difference between censorship and moderation.  If you want
> a
> dictionary definition:
> 
> Censor (verb) - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything
> considered objectionable
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
> 
> Moderate (verb) - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression *:
> *observing
> reasonable limit
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
> 
> Nobody can define with absolute clarity where the distinction is.
> Sometimes the situation is obvious, other times it is more
> nuanced.  I
> don't envy the role of a moderator on an internet mailing list but I
> am
> happy that they exist.  If libreplanet-discuss were completely un-
> moderated
> and open to any and all trolls to spew whatever inflammatory nonsense
> they
> wish, then it would very quickly cease to be a useful place of
> discussion
> and I personally would unsubscribe.
> 
> It is not censorship for moderators of libreplanet-discuss to decide
> not to
> forward your message to everyone who has joined the list.  Almost
> every
> online community needs some level of moderation.  You are always
> welcome to
> write and publish your opinions through you own platform, which
> thanks to
> technology and libre software is easier today than it has ever been
> in
> human history.
>    On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <[1]321942@gmail
> .com>
>    wrote:
> 
>      David <[2]postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>      > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction
> IMHO
>      as the very same core points could have been made in a less
>      excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
>      guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.
>      That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due
> to
>      form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No
> dictionary
>      available to me suggest it.
> 
>    There is a difference between censorship and moderation.  If you
> want a
>    dictionary definition:
>    Censor (verb) - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything
>    considered objectionable
>    [3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
>    Moderate (verb) - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression :
>    observing reasonable limit
>    [4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
>    Nobody can define with absolute clarity where the distinction is.
>    Sometimes the situation is obvious, other times it is more
> nuanced.  I
>    don't envy the role of a moderator on an internet mailing list but
> I am
>    happy that they exist.  If libreplanet-discuss were completely
>    un-moderated and open to any and all trolls to spew whatever
>    inflammatory nonsense they wish, then it would very quickly cease
> to be
>    a useful place of discussion and I personally would unsubscribe.
>    It is not censorship for moderators of libreplanet-discuss to
> decide
>    not to forward your message to everyone who has joined the list.
>    Almost every online community needs some level of moderation.  You
> are
>    always welcome to write and publish your opinions through you own
>    platform, which thanks to technology and libre software is easier
> today
>    than it has ever been in human history.
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:321942@gmail.com
>    2. mailto:postmaster@customer-opinions.net
>    3. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
>    4. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’

[Adam Van Ymeren]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:28 AM Quiliro Ordóñez <quiliro@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> El 2019-10-10 21:05, Adam Van Ymeren escribió:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <[1]321942@gmail.com>
> >    wrote:
> >
> >      David <[2]postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
> >      > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO
> >      as the very same core points could have been made in a less
> >      excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
> >      guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.
> >      That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to
> >      form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary
> >      available to me suggest it.
> >
> >    There is a difference between censorship and moderation.  If you want a
> >    dictionary definition:
> >    Censor (verb) - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything
> >    considered objectionable
> >    [3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
> >    Moderate (verb) - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression :
> >    observing reasonable limit
> >    [4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
> >    Nobody can define with absolute clarity where the distinction is.
> >    Sometimes the situation is obvious, other times it is more nuanced.  I
> >    don't envy the role of a moderator on an internet mailing list but I am
> >    happy that they exist.  If libreplanet-discuss were completely
> >    un-moderated and open to any and all trolls to spew whatever
> >    inflammatory nonsense they wish, then it would very quickly cease to be
> >    a useful place of discussion and I personally would unsubscribe.
> >    It is not censorship for moderators of libreplanet-discuss to decide
> >    not to forward your message to everyone who has joined the list.
> >    Almost every online community needs some level of moderation.  You are
> >    always welcome to write and publish your opinions through you own
> >    platform, which thanks to technology and libre software is easier today
> >    than it has ever been in human history.
>
> Who is it to be the censor? The majority? The moderator? Why would a
> majority or a moderator be correct and the censored incorrect?

A moderator may not always be correct, that's why I don't envy anyone
with that role.  It's a hard job where doing well is not easily
recognized, easily criticized, but doing poorly can quickly destroy a
community.  However, even if they make mistakes I believe that
moderation is still necessary.

> I think that trolls are persons that are called that way by the people
> that do not want them to speak because they feel the sensation of
> control loss.

Sometimes that's true, but there are also trolls who are legitimate
bad actors, or even bots and state or corporation sponsored psyop
agents.

> If someone leaves a list because someone else thinks differently, that
> person must reinforce their own self esteem by recognizing that other
> peolpe's views (even if incorrect) are acceptable as their own, and not
> by blocking their expression.

I disagree that it's "blocking their expression" to prevent someone
from posting to this mailing list.

From here: https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

libreplanet-discuss is a place to "Discuss developments in the world
of free software, share your projects, and coordinate transportation
and lodging to the yearly LibrePlanet conference."

I come to this list to discuss free software and things related to
this movement.  I don't believe that libreplanet-disucss has a moral
obligation to forward any and all of someone's expressions to everyone
else on this list.  If this were a completely unmoderated space and it
a group of people started to fill it with racist content I don't
believe that I have any moral obligation to listen or engage with
them.

You are always welcome to start your own unmoderated space for
discussion but I am not obligated to join such a discussion forum.

>
>
> If you want a kind environment, you make it so, not other people.
> Controlling other people does not make a better or safe environment. It
> makes an oppressive environment which is in practice very unsafe.

I imagine that we are coming at this differently by imagining
different types of speech being censored or moderated.  I'm imagining
what happens to this community if someone is allowed to post hate
speech and inciting violence against some person or group.  You are
likely imagining much more reasonable opinions being censored because
they go against the "groupthink" of the community.

I agree that it is important to engage with people who hold different
opinions than our own, that's how you change minds, but I don't think
that means that moderation of an online community is by definition
wrong or should never be done.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’

[quiliro]

On Fri, October 11, 2019 10:06 am, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:28 AM Quiliro Ordóñez <quiliro@riseup.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> El 2019-10-10 21:05, Adam Van Ymeren escribió:
>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dmitry Alexandrov
>> <[1]321942@gmail.com>
>> >    wrote:
>> >
>> >      David <[2]postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>> >      > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction
>> IMHO
>> >      as the very same core points could have been made in a less
>> >      excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
>> >      guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.
>> >      That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due
>> to
>> >      form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No
>> dictionary
>> >      available to me suggest it.
>> >
>> >    There is a difference between censorship and moderation.  If you
>> want a
>> >    dictionary definition:
>> >    Censor (verb) - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything
>> >    considered objectionable
>> >    [3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
>> >    Moderate (verb) - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression :
>> >    observing reasonable limit
>> >    [4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
>> >    Nobody can define with absolute clarity where the distinction is.
>> >    Sometimes the situation is obvious, other times it is more nuanced.
>>  I
>> >    don't envy the role of a moderator on an internet mailing list but
>> I am
>> >    happy that they exist.  If libreplanet-discuss were completely
>> >    un-moderated and open to any and all trolls to spew whatever
>> >    inflammatory nonsense they wish, then it would very quickly cease
>> to be
>> >    a useful place of discussion and I personally would unsubscribe.
>> >    It is not censorship for moderators of libreplanet-discuss to
>> decide
>> >    not to forward your message to everyone who has joined the list.
>> >    Almost every online community needs some level of moderation.  You
>> are
>> >    always welcome to write and publish your opinions through you own
>> >    platform, which thanks to technology and libre software is easier
>> today
>> >    than it has ever been in human history.
>>
>> Who is it to be the censor? The majority? The moderator? Why would a
>> majority or a moderator be correct and the censored incorrect?
>
> A moderator may not always be correct, that's why I don't envy anyone
> with that role.  It's a hard job where doing well is not easily
> recognized, easily criticized, but doing poorly can quickly destroy a
> community.  However, even if they make mistakes I believe that
> moderation is still necessary.

That is your opinion. But probably not of the censored. So it is not a
general opinion. Moderation by someone else is just a word to avoid bad
image. A moderator on a mailing list is just a plain censor: someone which
suppresses free speech.

>> I think that trolls are persons that are called that way by the people
>> that do not want them to speak because they feel the sensation of
>> control loss.
>
> Sometimes that's true, but there are also trolls who are legitimate
> bad actors, or even bots and state or corporation sponsored psyop
> agents.

That is something else. All members can agree to stop that. The actors
that side with that type of activity seldom do it openly.

>> If someone leaves a list because someone else thinks differently, that
>> person must reinforce their own self esteem by recognizing that other
>> peolpe's views (even if incorrect) are acceptable as their own, and not
>> by blocking their expression.
>
> I disagree that it's "blocking their expression" to prevent someone
> from posting to this mailing list.

You are expressing a paradox here. It is contradictory. To prevent is in
effect to block.

> From here:
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>
> libreplanet-discuss is a place to "Discuss developments in the world
> of free software, share your projects, and coordinate transportation
> and lodging to the yearly LibrePlanet conference."

That is what a founder wrote. It is not carved in stone.

> I come to this list to discuss free software and things related to
> this movement.  I don't believe that libreplanet-disucss has a moral
> obligation to forward any and all of someone's expressions to everyone
> else on this list.  If this were a completely unmoderated space and it
> a group of people started to fill it with racist content I don't
> believe that I have any moral obligation to listen or engage with
> them.

Expression is in no way obligation to listen.

> You are always welcome to start your own unmoderated space for
> discussion but I am not obligated to join such a discussion forum.

What you say is equivalent of: "If you want to talk against certain muslim
traditions, you can are welcome to do it freely outside of Iran." it is
still censorship.

>> If you want a kind environment, you make it so, not other people.
>> Controlling other people does not make a better or safe environment. It
>> makes an oppressive environment which is in practice very unsafe.
>
> I imagine that we are coming at this differently by imagining
> different types of speech being censored or moderated.  I'm imagining
> what happens to this community if someone is allowed to post hate
> speech and inciting violence against some person or group.  You are
> likely imagining much more reasonable opinions being censored because
> they go against the "groupthink" of the community.
>
> I agree that it is important to engage with people who hold different
> opinions than our own, that's how you change minds, but I don't think
> that means that moderation of an online community is by definition
> wrong or should never be done.

If there is violence such as what you propose censoring, it is not
suppressed by censorship, which is also itself a type of violence. It is
descaled by the exposure and acceptance of the violent act and the
avoidance of giving it notoriousness. Then we can address the real issue
which generated such violence.


_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1740 bytes --]

You replied privately, offlist.  Was it intentional?  If yes, why: I see nothing secret there?  If no, may I resent it back to the list?

David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300
>> Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO as the very same core points could have been made in a less excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked guidelines
>> > 
>> > That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary available to me suggest it.

>  Sorry to double send but, on review, I think a bit more explanation is needed.

>  the points in question can avoid censorship, or hit it head on, depending on how they are put. Daniel was triggering blocking/censorship head on by stating his points in a way which breached the guidelines on many levels

>  It would have been a rather trivial matter for Daniel to have stated his key points in a non-controversial way

>  I hope I've clarified this for you now but if I can be of more assistance please let me know.

Thank you for a thorough explanation of censor’s motives.  But... I suppose now, my question was poorly phrased: I had to clarify, that it actually has nothing do to with Daniel’s letter specifically, but to ‘censorship’ in general.

As you noticed, I am not an Anglophone, so on reading your remark, I suspected that I misunderstood how the word ‘censorship’ is used in English.  To me it looked (and still looks) fully applicable to forbidding expressions as well as ideas.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’

[David]

Absolutely yes, and I did so as your mail to me was private. If someone
sends me a private mail I follow suit but I've nothing whatever to
hide on this topic. That said if you ever wish to contact me
privately please do feel free to do so and know that I'll keep any
private contact confidential.

David Nash

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:11:51 +0300 Dmitry
Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:

> You replied privately, offlist.  Was it intentional?  If yes, why: I
> see nothing secret there?  If no, may I resent it back to the list?
> 
> David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300
> >> Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:  
> >> > David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:  
> >> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction
> >> > > IMHO as the very same core points could have been made in a
> >> > > less excitable manner without potential breaching of the above
> >> > > linked guidelines  
> >> > 
> >> > That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due
> >> > to form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No
> >> > dictionary available to me suggest it.  
> 
> >  Sorry to double send but, on review, I think a bit more
> > explanation is needed.  
> 
> >  the points in question can avoid censorship, or hit it head on,
> > depending on how they are put. Daniel was triggering
> > blocking/censorship head on by stating his points in a way which
> > breached the guidelines on many levels  
> 
> >  It would have been a rather trivial matter for Daniel to have
> > stated his key points in a non-controversial way  
> 
> >  I hope I've clarified this for you now but if I can be of more
> > assistance please let me know.  
> 
> Thank you for a thorough explanation of censor’s motives.  But... I
> suppose now, my question was poorly phrased: I had to clarify, that
> it actually has nothing do to with Daniel’s letter specifically, but
> to ‘censorship’ in general.
> 
> As you noticed, I am not an Anglophone, so on reading your remark, I
> suspected that I misunderstood how the word ‘censorship’ is used in
> English.  To me it looked (and still looks) fully applicable to
> forbidding expressions as well as ideas.


_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:11:51 +0300 Dmitry
> Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You replied privately, offlist.  Was it intentional?  If yes, why: I see nothing secret there?
>
> Absolutely yes, and I did so as your mail to me was private.

I’m sure it was not.  :-)

>> If no, may I resent it back to the list?
>
> If someone sends me a private mail I follow suit but I've nothing whatever to hide on this topic.

I am interpreting this as ‘yes’.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ‘censorship’

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1136 bytes --]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
> * Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> [2019-10-12 11:36]:
>> David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:11:51 +0300 Dmitry
>> > Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You replied privately, offlist.  Was it intentional?  If yes, why: I see nothing secret there?
>> >
>> > Absolutely yes, and I did so as your mail to me was private.
>> 
>> I’m sure it was not.  :-)
>
> Then maybe I forgot to press "g" in mutt.
>
>> >> If no, may I resent it back to the list?
>> >
>> > If someone sends me a private mail I follow suit but I've nothing whatever to hide on this topic.
>> 
>> I am interpreting this as ‘yes’.
>
> My opinion related to GNU Project is public.

Time zone changes indeed affect you badly.  :-)  I mean, you and David are not the same person, do not you?

> Cc: Info GNU <info-gnu@gnu.org>

This is announcements-only m/l of GNU Project — mostly for new releases.  Thus a totally wrong place to post something like this.  However, no harm was done, as I see, as you do not have posting access to it anyway.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss