To Nicks' point,
| Section 230 also allows social platforms to moderate their services by removing posts that, for instance, are obscene or violate the services’ own standards, so long as they are acting in “good faith.”
Granted that only covers the U.S., I think the IETF is a U.S. company. If we really can't moderate away posts like this, something is very, very wrong.
As for non-transparent methods, I'm not suggesting that we not be transparent. But think of this in terms of trigger warnings: it's fine to post about something, and it's even fine for interested parties to discuss that thing, but sometimes it's good to have that discussion be opt-in rather than compulsory.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:26 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 12:11 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Ted Lemon wrote on 10/06/2024 17:05:
> It's not clear to me that this is even the right approach. Someone who
> behaves in this way on IETF mailing lists even once should be moderated
> from that point forward, or banned. The end of the PR-action should not
> be "back to normal." It's utterly naive to think that a 14-day
> cooling-off period is going to fix something like this.
Moderation is not always advisable. Who is the publisher of a moderated
email? And who is responsible for the consequences of publication? On
what basis do they make that call?
The behaviour displayed in this particular situation has been fairly
poor to say the least, but if the moderation guidelines are going to be
revisited, I'd suggest revising them after heat level has dropped a bit.Yeah, the problem here is that these non-transparent methods *have* been abused in IETF WGs (not against me), and so the quiet methods are thus suspect. So, the folks that dropped people from mailings lists, silently suppressed messages, and all such things have created this conundrum.thanks,Rob
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
