3 ms·

Yeah I don't understand that argument -- how could silently deleting emails enable censorship? I guess the email server could censor emails by silently deleting

• FalconSensei 7y ago
  If there's no way for people to access those emails (as they were silently deleted), it's basically censorship, or am I wrong?
  • sneak 7y ago
    Correct. Censorship is a tool, it is not inherently good or bad. You want your email server to censor all entirely-obviously-over-the-top spam messages, for example (e.g. SA score >20). Most people want Facebook and Discord et al to censor spam postings. However, when censorship veers from basic utility into editorializing (e.g. Facebook and Instagram's algorithmic prioritization/deprioritization in user feeds, Discord banning the legal and regulation-compliant /r/guns subreddit's Discord, or Facebook banning posts with male nipples, or Youtube banning instructional/educational videos about computer security, or Apple and the Taiwanese flag, or Gmail spam-foldering emails from smaller email providers not part of the deliverability cartel, or a million other examples), then it becomes a social issue and a potential problem that we need to address. Email that is not 100% not-a-false-positive should never be silently trashed.
• ebg13 7y ago
  It doesn't matter because that's NOT the reason why spam is commonly not autodeleted. The reason is because of false positives. If you could be 100% certain of never falsely flagging an email as spam, you would be totally OK with autodeleting them unless you're either just curious or specifically doing something with spam messages.