Emil Ivov <emil@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Ironically, advising *others* how *they* should follow Postel’s principle is exactly the opposite of the principle.
Really it's not. The exact opposite would be "Be conservative in what you accept, liberal in what you send". There's nothing in Postel's Principle that keeps people from explaining the principle to others or how it might map to their situation. It would be a fairly useless principle if that were the case. Thanks, Chris.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 00:44 Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx> wrote:
This is the argument about Postel's principle (conservative in
what you send, liberal in what you accept) in layer 9.
It seems to me that Facebook is doing just fine slowing down (24
hours) the possible propagation of violence incitement without
requiring a lot of judgement on what does or does not constitute
thoughtful vs. inciteful speech.
"Kill them all and let TCP sort it out" can readily be expressed
in other terms. A content moderation policy that slowed down
frequent postings (by 24 hours) might temper heated conversations
and lead to calmer considerations of the actual requirements.
> I hereby propose we censor Facebook engineers in IETF meetings
for promoting stupidity.
Can public forums improve the quality of discussion by delaying
frequent, divisive posters?
Is trying to do so really "promoting stupidity"? (Obligatory 😊)
--
https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
