3 ms·

You can’t be serious. Are you serious? Spam is not censored. You have access to it. You click on the spam folder and you can read the spam email in all it’s glo

You can’t be serious. Are you serious? Spam is not censored. You have access to it. You click on the spam folder and you can read the spam email in all it’s glory! And before you even mention auto deletion, you can disable that. I think that should be opt in not opt out but, yeah, spam in not being censored.

IntelMiner 4y ago
You have to click a spam folder. You have to make a conscious effort to interact with the free speech being sent to you. Therefore it's not free
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  We have different definitions of censorship. To me that is not censorship. Censorship is making information functionality unavailable or altering it. Delete it or deliberately make it very hard to access or change it’s contents. If you click a button or even add a message ( apart from the content ) that is not censorship. That’s why for example I don’t consider it censorship when youtube added covid messages to certain videos.
  - IntelMiner 4y ago
    Sounds like some mental gymnastics to me
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      No you just loosened the definition of censorship to fit your terrible analogy, then you insulted the GP accusing them of doing mental gymnastics. You're projecting. But since you do want to stick to the spam filter in your email box analogy I would like to propose a solution. Would you prefer users be able to manage block lists, filters, and such themselves instead of content being removed for all users? Do you really prefer this large social media oligopoly to have have final say in what the masses should see? Why not let the users manage what they see? Do you feel the same way about all subjects? Do you support the right of ISPs blocking porn for example?
      - IntelMiner 4y ago
        hunterb123 4y ago
        First off, I'm not the user you were replying to. Second, you're not really listening, you're just hurling insults and getting angry, that's not a healthy debate. You didn't attempt to answer any of my prompts. You didn't even attempt to clarify your definition or understand mine or the GPs. Sure maybe spam filter lists should be more open? I don't really disagree nor is it really relevant. It's whataboutism. Yes spam filters could be more user sided, but so could social media moderation. Do you agree or disagree with that?
wpietri 4y ago
That's incorrect. Most of the spam never reaches your mailbox. It's only the least dubious of it that gets passed on.

IntelMiner 4y ago

You have to click a spam folder. You have to make a conscious effort to interact with the free speech being sent to you. Therefore it's not free

throwawayacc2 4y ago
We have different definitions of censorship. To me that is not censorship. Censorship is making information functionality unavailable or altering it. Delete it or deliberately make it very hard to access or change it’s contents. If you click a button or even add a message ( apart from the content ) that is not censorship. That’s why for example I don’t consider it censorship when youtube added covid messages to certain videos.
- IntelMiner 4y ago
  Sounds like some mental gymnastics to me
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    No you just loosened the definition of censorship to fit your terrible analogy, then you insulted the GP accusing them of doing mental gymnastics. You're projecting. But since you do want to stick to the spam filter in your email box analogy I would like to propose a solution. Would you prefer users be able to manage block lists, filters, and such themselves instead of content being removed for all users? Do you really prefer this large social media oligopoly to have have final say in what the masses should see? Why not let the users manage what they see? Do you feel the same way about all subjects? Do you support the right of ISPs blocking porn for example?
    - IntelMiner 4y ago
      - hunterb123 4y ago
        First off, I'm not the user you were replying to. Second, you're not really listening, you're just hurling insults and getting angry, that's not a healthy debate. You didn't attempt to answer any of my prompts. You didn't even attempt to clarify your definition or understand mine or the GPs. Sure maybe spam filter lists should be more open? I don't really disagree nor is it really relevant. It's whataboutism. Yes spam filters could be more user sided, but so could social media moderation. Do you agree or disagree with that?

wpietri 4y ago

That's incorrect. Most of the spam never reaches your mailbox. It's only the least dubious of it that gets passed on.