This is essentially an argument in favor of spam. That we don’t need to and shouldn’t prevent spam, because people are just expressing their points of view. A nice principle, but in practice it doesn’t scale.
In practice, spam is very harmful, even when it’s well intentioned. If I talk loudly enough and often enough, that serves to prevent those who don’t have time to wade through my speech or are traumatized by it from participating. It results in filters being created that mostly filter me out, and in the process also filter others out as a side effect.
This is a very hard problem, as we all know, but noticing that someone lacks the ability to self-moderate—to be considerate of other participants with whom they disagree—and moderating them is definitely worthwhile. Communities that don’t do this die.
Do we really want all the work we’ve done here to fade into obscurity because the organization is so toxic that it dies with us? I don’t want that. I hope you don’t either. That is what is at stake.
Op zo 2 okt. 2022 om 11:46 schreef Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--On 10/2/22 11:04, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Dan has created a situation where we have to choose between his contributions and the contributions of the people he would drive away through his behavior.Or maybe it's not Dan who has created this situation, but rather, those who insist on suppressing his input.
We used to understand that the fact that we allowed people of widely varying points of view to express themselves, was not an endorsement of such views.
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
