| 1 |
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:52:52 -0400 |
| 2 |
Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Is this proposal itself not just a waste of valuable developer time |
| 5 |
> in moderating, censoring & deciding who is a sheep & who is a goat ? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Its not censorship, because censorship is the practice of preventing |
| 8 |
something from being said in entirety. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
People can still voice their opinion, and we aren't going to be |
| 11 |
suppressing it, we're just making a decision about which channels they |
| 12 |
can say things to. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And we're giving consumers a choice whether they want to hear |
| 15 |
everything, or hear only a subset of things, by allowing them to |
| 16 |
subscribe to either channel. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's no more censorship than somebody setting their social media feed |
| 19 |
to allow no outsiders to post on it. Individuals can still post in |
| 20 |
their own feeds, and those who want to see it can still see it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But when it comes to *my* feed, I'm entitled to dictate what occurs in |
| 23 |
it, without being accused of censorship. |
Archives