[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       majordomo-users
Subject:    Censorship through intelligent editing
From:       CW2 Rob Miletich <mileticr () campbell-emh4 ! army ! mil>
Date:       1995-08-25 0:28:33
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Project Genesis wrote:

[snip apology]

> I suggested that the fellow critical of moderated lists lighten up.  Mental
> neanderthals tend to plague any list of large size, so anyone wanting to run
> a large list needs to know how to stop certain people from posting.  Someone
> else has a first amendment right to say what he will - but I don't have to
> publish it.  That's not called censorship, but intelligent editing.  Those
> without that intelligence are unlikely see their lists reach 1000 readers.

Mental neanderthals plague everything - not only lists of large size, but
everyday social events as well. I have not yet figgered a way of avoiding
them completely. Being on this list usually indicates that we might know
the tripe about the provider not having to publish anything and
everything. That wasn't the question. There are already controls for that.
Do they call it *responsible* editing when you go through the library
books sorting the 'neanderthal ones' into a tinder pile? 

There are closed and open lists. Moderated and unmoderated. My point is 
that clearly providing for a gray area where *unadvertised intelligent 
editing* is going on does not fall within the scope of either closed, 
open, moderated or unmoderated. Maybe what you're suggesting is *secretly 
moderated* list.

secretly_moderated = "yes"       ;for those unethical enough

Unless I am selling something, commodities or ideas, I will temper the 
desire for 1000s of subscribers with the advantage of subscriber control.

Lists that I belong to and subscribers I am familiar with, join 
discussions for the benefit of open exchange (if so advertised), not for 
the benefit of being unwittingly subjected to *sanitized* thoughts or 
ideas, or a sales pitch unencumbered with critical dialogue. You want to 
prevent idiocy from spamming your list - others would use it to present a 
sales pitch or ideology without having to deal with detractors.

I suggest there might be other methods for dealing with problem users 
(address filtering at the IP level, discussions with the ISP or SA of 
spamming site, etc) -- you know, general *management* techniques related 
to providing a service. 

(apologies to group for departure into eff.social.tool.marketing.mj - now
back to your regularly scheduled diet of file and directory ownership
problems ;-)
 
Rob Miletich

PS: Mind you, I don't object to the "secretly_moderated" option, as long
as it's hardwired to be prominantly displayed on every message that passes
through so configured majordomo. And you said I needed to lighten up... 

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]