* Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8 [not found] <mailman.85.1570723241.24075.libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> @ 2019-10-10 17:14 ` David 2019-10-10 20:47 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Dmitry Alexandrov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: David @ 2019-10-10 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: libreplanet-discuss 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 2019-10-10 17:14 ` libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8 David @ 2019-10-10 20:47 ` Dmitry Alexandrov 2019-10-10 22:10 ` David 2019-10-11 2:05 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Adam Van Ymeren 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Alexandrov @ 2019-10-10 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David; +Cc: libreplanet-discuss [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 2019-10-10 20:47 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Dmitry Alexandrov @ 2019-10-10 22:10 ` David 2019-10-10 22:29 ` David 2019-10-11 2:05 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Adam Van Ymeren 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: David @ 2019-10-10 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitry Alexandrov 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 2019-10-10 22:10 ` David @ 2019-10-10 22:29 ` David 2019-10-11 18:11 ` ‘censorship’ Dmitry Alexandrov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: David @ 2019-10-10 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitry Alexandrov 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ 2019-10-10 22:29 ` David @ 2019-10-11 18:11 ` Dmitry Alexandrov 2019-10-11 22:30 ` ‘censorship’ David 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Alexandrov @ 2019-10-11 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ 2019-10-11 18:11 ` ‘censorship’ Dmitry Alexandrov @ 2019-10-11 22:30 ` David 2019-10-12 9:34 ` ‘censorship’ Dmitry Alexandrov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: David @ 2019-10-11 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitry Alexandrov 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ 2019-10-11 22:30 ` ‘censorship’ David @ 2019-10-12 9:34 ` Dmitry Alexandrov [not found] ` <20191012105054.GA14432@protected.rcdrun.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Alexandrov @ 2019-10-12 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David; +Cc: libreplanet-discuss [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20191012105054.GA14432@protected.rcdrun.com>]
* Re: ‘censorship’ [not found] ` <20191012105054.GA14432@protected.rcdrun.com> @ 2019-10-12 12:56 ` Dmitry Alexandrov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Alexandrov @ 2019-10-12 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jean Louis; +Cc: Libreplanet Discuss [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 2019-10-10 20:47 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Dmitry Alexandrov 2019-10-10 22:10 ` David @ 2019-10-11 2:05 ` Adam Van Ymeren 2019-10-11 4:28 ` ‘censorship’ Quiliro Ordóñez 2019-10-11 10:52 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 'smee via libreplanet-discuss 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Adam Van Ymeren @ 2019-10-11 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitry Alexandrov; +Cc: David, libreplanet-discuss [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ 2019-10-11 2:05 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Adam Van Ymeren @ 2019-10-11 4:28 ` Quiliro Ordóñez 2019-10-11 15:06 ` ‘censorship’ Adam Van Ymeren 2019-10-11 10:52 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 'smee via libreplanet-discuss 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Quiliro Ordóñez @ 2019-10-11 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: libreplanet-discuss 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ 2019-10-11 4:28 ` ‘censorship’ Quiliro Ordóñez @ 2019-10-11 15:06 ` Adam Van Ymeren 2019-10-11 16:06 ` ‘censorship’ quiliro 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Adam Van Ymeren @ 2019-10-11 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Quiliro Ordóñez; +Cc: Libreplanet-discuss 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ 2019-10-11 15:06 ` ‘censorship’ Adam Van Ymeren @ 2019-10-11 16:06 ` quiliro 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: quiliro @ 2019-10-11 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Libreplanet-discuss 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 2019-10-11 2:05 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Adam Van Ymeren 2019-10-11 4:28 ` ‘censorship’ Quiliro Ordóñez @ 2019-10-11 10:52 ` 'smee via libreplanet-discuss 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: 'smee via libreplanet-discuss @ 2019-10-11 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adam Van Ymeren, Dmitry Alexandrov; +Cc: David, 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-12 12:57 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <mailman.85.1570723241.24075.libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> 2019-10-10 17:14 ` libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8 David 2019-10-10 20:47 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Dmitry Alexandrov 2019-10-10 22:10 ` David 2019-10-10 22:29 ` David 2019-10-11 18:11 ` ‘censorship’ Dmitry Alexandrov 2019-10-11 22:30 ` ‘censorship’ David 2019-10-12 9:34 ` ‘censorship’ Dmitry Alexandrov [not found] ` <20191012105054.GA14432@protected.rcdrun.com> 2019-10-12 12:56 ` ‘censorship’ Dmitry Alexandrov 2019-10-11 2:05 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) Adam Van Ymeren 2019-10-11 4:28 ` ‘censorship’ Quiliro Ordóñez 2019-10-11 15:06 ` ‘censorship’ Adam Van Ymeren 2019-10-11 16:06 ` ‘censorship’ quiliro 2019-10-11 10:52 ` ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8) 'smee via libreplanet-discuss
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).