undefined | Better HN

0 pointsblowski4y ago0 comments

What if users don't want to be informed, or make their own modifications? What if they just want a click a button and not receive junk mail, albeit also not receiving the occasional non-junk email because it had an unusual address.

I'd guess there are far more users like that, which is precisely why there are no major email providers offering the kind of service you talk about.

As always comes up in these conversations, while you have a right to speak, users have a right not to listen, and to use tools to help accomplish that.

0 comments

mindslight4y ago

You say you are "exploring where that line is", but then continue pushing a single sided view by conjuring some perfect user archtype who simultaneously has very strong opinions but also can't be bothered to express them. I know users are unreasonable, but completely discounting their agency does not make for reasonable analysis.

I've merely put forth a straightforward definition of "censorship" - one where there is a third party censor who controls the content of speech.

To translate your scenario into an earlier time - if most people in a society don't want to hear thoughts that conflict with the teachings of the church, and they appoint someone to an office to approve play manuscripts before they're performed, is that censorship?

If merely labeling centralized user-uninvolved content filtering with the technical term of "censorship" makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you need to revisit your own assumptions.

blowskiOP4y ago

Have you ever thought you might be wrong? Go and talk to the nearest non-technical person you can find and ask them whether they’d consider it censorship. It seems you’re in for a surprise.

mindslight4y ago

I don't see the relevance of how the average person might respond. People associate the term "censorship" with badness, and thus react with cognitive dissonance when an idea that they like is characterized by an appropriate technical term that has negative connotations. I suspect this is exactly what's happening here - I've basically made some pretty dry analysis based on a straightforward definition, while you've reacted with a larger pro-third-party-filtering (ie censorship) narrative that goes way beyond anything I said.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsblowski4y ago0 comments

I'd guess there are far more users like that, which is precisely why there are no major email providers offering the kind of service you talk about.

As always comes up in these conversations, while you have a right to speak, users have a right not to listen, and to use tools to help accomplish that.

0 comments

mindslight4y ago

I've merely put forth a straightforward definition of "censorship" - one where there is a third party censor who controls the content of speech.

If merely labeling centralized user-uninvolved content filtering with the technical term of "censorship" makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you need to revisit your own assumptions.

blowskiOP4y ago

Have you ever thought you might be wrong? Go and talk to the nearest non-technical person you can find and ask them whether they’d consider it censorship. It seems you’re in for a surprise.

mindslight4y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse