Re: Future of online fora

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:27:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 4/7/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:58:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 4/7/2025 3:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
>

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?

>
Exactly.  Is that the message we want to send to impressionable children?

>
yes it is.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
>
Sometimes.
>
I referred to the spectrum of that obliquely. I can be more
explicit.
>
Examples of "he decides to do what he believes to be right
rather then be governed by laws and customs"  covers Rosa
Parks as well as Timothy McVeigh.

>
Understand that I am not suggesting that there be no consequences for
what a person does, but still, how does a person face himself in the
mirror if he does not, at the very least, weigh his principles against
the consequences?
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Right.  Then again there are principles and there are
principles.
>
Some are more defensible than others.
>
We all appreciate individual courage where system and
convention are wrong.  But that's hard to universalize as
sometimes convention is already the best approach.

>
I wonder what the percentage of people in the world are happy with the
world as it is. I suspect that it's pretty small.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Well, yes but that's a low standard. And not helpful
>
People who don't like 'things as they are' include communist
idealists, Libertarians and jihadis.  Over to you.

 But where are the people who are happy with "convention?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman