RE: [ga] private filters are private blinkers

["John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>]

If "private filters are private blinkers", then it is equally true that
public filters are public blinkers.

Without commenting on the substance of your particular dispute, lies posted
by someone who is widely privately filtered are undetected only by those who
have already determined for themselves that that individual's comments are
unworthy of consideration.  The same lies posted by someone who is centrally
filtered would be unseen and unrefutable by anyone who subscribes to the
"official" list, regardless of whether or not they have reached an opinion
regarding the poster's credibility.

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> Karl,
>
> Were it only so simple.
> What if a person tell the list that the IDNO has only 35 members (instead
> of 160) and  Andrew picks this up and uses it as a basis for advising the
> Board?
>
> What if half of the list has filtered this person because of his offensive
> language?
>
> What if the result of that filtering is that lies go unrefuted?
>
> Private filters are unworkable if anything meaningful is going to take
> place on this list.
> Private filters are private blinkers.  They cause  bad judgement.
>
> OTOH, I also think that Harald's rules are not going to give us Civil
> Discourse, because they lack a complaints/apology system.
> People can still be as offensive and provocative as they like and
> this will
>  guarantee that the list will continue to be full of noise in response.
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org  (or direct:)
> http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
>