Forums

OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet

Started by John Doe April 26, 2022
Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. 
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with 
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to 
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the 
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people 
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is 
the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with 
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block 
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, 
etc). 

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for 
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see 
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who 
are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another 
person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to 
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent 
them from interacting with it. 

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means 
freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give 
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:36:49 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
One has to wonder why John Doe would think that. Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a second Capitol invasion. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.
> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with > shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to > original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the > most unusual way. > > As long as there are censors, there will be corruption.
There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence. Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking they know what's best for everybody else Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion.
> Letting people decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is > the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does.
John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron. One can understand why.
> Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.
So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so? Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.
> The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block > would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, > etc). > > For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for > all replies. > > Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see > posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who > are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another > person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to > prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent > them from interacting with it. > > Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means > freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give > up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.
Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. > BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with > shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to > original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the > most unusual way. > > As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people > decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is > the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does. > > Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with > your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa. > > The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block > would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, > etc). > > For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for > all replies. > > Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see > posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who > are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another > person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to > prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent > them from interacting with it. > > Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means > freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give > up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.
You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment sections, lol
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote: >> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with >> shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to >> original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the >> most unusual way. >> >> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people >> decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is >> the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does. >> >> Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with >> your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa. >> >> The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block >> would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, >> etc). >> >> For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for >> all replies. >> >> Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see >> posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who >> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another >> person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent >> them from interacting with it. >> >> Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement. > >You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment >sections, lol
Why would anyone use twitter? And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio audience to laugh. -- Anybody can count to one. - Robert Widlar
On 4/26/2022 10:15 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote: >>> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >>> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with >>> shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to >>> original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the >>> most unusual way. >>> >>> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people >>> decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is >>> the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does. >>> >>> Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with >>> your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa. >>> >>> The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block >>> would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, >>> etc). >>> >>> For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for >>> all replies. >>> >>> Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see >>> posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who >>> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another >>> person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >>> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent >>> them from interacting with it. >>> >>> Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >>> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >>> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement. >> >> You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment >> sections, lol > > Why would anyone use twitter? > > And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently > funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio > audience to laugh.
My post wasn't the funny one.
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote: >>> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >>> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with >>> shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to >>> original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the >>> most unusual way. >>> >>> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people >>> decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is >>> the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does. >>> >>> Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with >>> your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa. >>> >>> The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block >>> would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, >>> etc). >>> >>> For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for >>> all replies. >>> >>> Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see >>> posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who >>> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another >>> person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >>> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent >>> them from interacting with it. >>> >>> Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >>> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >>> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement. >> >> You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment >> sections, lol > > Why would anyone use twitter? > > And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently > funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio > audience to laugh.
Don't knock it--'lol' is a public service announcement, which translates roughly as "please ignore me." It's a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and especially NOLA. My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre', and she said it was very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:08:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote: >>>> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >>>> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with >>>> shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to >>>> original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the >>>> most unusual way. >>>> >>>> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people >>>> decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is >>>> the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does. >>>> >>>> Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with >>>> your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa. >>>> >>>> The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block >>>> would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month, >>>> etc). >>>> >>>> For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for >>>> all replies. >>>> >>>> Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see >>>> posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who >>>> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another >>>> person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to >>>> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent >>>> them from interacting with it. >>>> >>>> Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means >>>> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords to give >>>> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement. >>> >>> You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment >>> sections, lol >> >> Why would anyone use twitter? >> >> And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn't inherently >> funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio >> audience to laugh. > >Don't knock it--'lol' is a public service announcement, which translates >roughly as "please ignore me."
Oh. Thanks.
> >It's a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young >male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and >especially NOLA. > >My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre', and she said it was >very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like >that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them. ;)
NOLA is a magnet for southern yahoos who want to drink and sin. They usually manage to drink, at least. The locals are far more elegant. -- Anybody can count to one. - Robert Widlar
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:36:49 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
Yeah, maybe. Thing is, Twitter can't be changed and still be viable, it'll just become less interesting if the 'brand of censorship' so dictates. I'm uninterested already.
> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption.
Censors were a class of Roman judge. The existence of those judges was a response to perceived 'corruption', so the existence of censors is always associated with corruption: we create such authority to deal with such a problem. Censors are the effect, corruption of some sort is the cause. The idea (I'm blaming Newt Gingrich for this one) of a post-truth world creates a well-trod path in some discussion venues, and Twitter deserves some controversy. A few billion dollars passing from one hand to another says how much, in a very emphatic manner.
On 4/26/2022 11:08 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote: >>>> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. >>>> BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went >>>> ballistic with >>>> shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to >>>> original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in >>>> the >>>> most unusual way. >>>> >>>> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people >>>> decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the >>>> Internet is >>>> the only way around it. That's what mutual blocking does. >>>> >>>> Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from >>>> interacting with >>>> your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa. >>>> >>>> The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block >>>> would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 >>>> month, >>>> etc). >>>> >>>> For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be >>>> implemented for >>>> all replies. >>>> >>>> Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see >>>> posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to >>>> people who >>>> are only signed in (maybe that doesn't work), a person can see another >>>> person's content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no >>>> reason to >>>> prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just >>>> prevent >>>> them from interacting with it. >>>> >>>> Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also >>>> means >>>> freedom of speech. But I wouldn't hold my breath for the overlords >>>> to give >>>> up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement. >>> >>> You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment >>> sections, lol >> >> Why would anyone use twitter? >> >> And why do people still say&nbsp;&nbsp; lol&nbsp; ? If your post isn't inherently >> funny, it's like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio >> audience to laugh. > > Don't knock it--'lol' is a public service announcement, which translates > roughly as "please ignore me." > > It's a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young > male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and > especially NOLA. > > My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre', and she said it was > very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like > that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them. ;) > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs
Some women believe there are two types of men, misogynists who are honest about it and misogynists who aren't, and tend to date the former type of man because like when your order lunch at Burger King you know well enough going in the food isn't going to be spectacular, but it's very likely to at least be consistent.
On 27/4/22 5:39 am, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:36:49 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote: >> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship. > > Yeah, maybe. Thing is, Twitter can't be changed and still be viable, it'll just > become less interesting if the 'brand of censorship' so dictates. I'm uninterested already. > >> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. > > Censors were a class of Roman judge. The existence of those > judges was a response to perceived 'corruption',
Evidence for this please? The role of censor was established to put power over the census firmly into the hands of patricians (the ruling class) and prevent plebians getting control over it. I fail to see how that could prevent corruption, or be seen as a response to corruption.
> so the existence > of censors is always associated with corruption: we create such > authority to deal with such a problem. Censors are the > effect, corruption of some sort is the cause.
Ordinary people could be censored for refusing to marry and breed, or for an ugly divorce, for neglecting your fields, for spoiling or abusing your children, for disobeying your parents, for acting in a theatre (disreputable conduct!) or for spending an extravagant amount of money... such as Elon just has (this last one happened many times!) None of those things has much to do with corruption, though they could disqualify a person from becoming a senator or remove their right to vote. The role of the censor in selling the right to collect tax seems rather likely to create corruption, not prevent it. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor> Clifford Heath