Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: AMuzi Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Future of online fora Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:27:48 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 110 Message-ID: References: <7j7tujt1qqsjncjl13c5saoujqjk5d6sra@4ax.com> <87y0weklaz.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <871pu43q06.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <2tv7vj5cebuif5p9juq7o3o2s6mdq59ksm@4ax.com> <74g8vj5n2g5iebb4fqt47ofncclv6d0ooa@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:27:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="01b2a68e25c658666e795ffff5677a26"; logging-data="857375"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191snOw/EvSSBix0vdA2yfS" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3LV3/78Sdrsv/w2tA2tRGZG5kKg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <74g8vj5n2g5iebb4fqt47ofncclv6d0ooa@4ax.com> Bytes: 5736 On 4/7/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:58:48 -0500, AMuzi wrote: > >> On 4/7/2025 3:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:06:48 -0500, AMuzi wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/7/2025 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:17:29 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John B. writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 23:42:28 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AMuzi writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi 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. -- Andrew Muzi am@yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971