Re: Future of online fora

On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>

On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
state.  Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
makes online providers fully responsible for online content
including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
>
Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
activity and more have followed.
>
>
>
*c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.

A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war
will
soon be unmentionable in polite society.

>
Yes, there's that.  And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete
obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the forced
and anemic Tom Sawyer.  It's among the most powerful anti racism works
ever published, but it's been banned in schools for decades.

>
Long before the current moral panic, _Huckleberry Finn_ was a
problematic due to its arc to the famous line "All right then, I'll go
to Hell".

But that is the point when he decides to do what he believes to be
right rather then be governed by laws and customs, isn't it?
--
Cheers,

John B.