On 10/2/22 15:08, Ted Lemon wrote:
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.
I don't think I'm arguing in favor of spam. The usual problem of spam
is not that the content is objectionable (though that certainly can
happen and has happened) but that the sheer volume of completely
irrelevant messages obscures legitimate messages. I don't think Dan is
being accused of overwhelming IETF lists with excessive volume of
irrelevant messages.
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.
To me what is toxic is the intolerance of the expression of alternative
views.
Keith
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
