Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 15/03/2022 15:58, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> I don’t feel it’s critical to continue debating it point by point and agree
> the list shouldn’t continue down this thread either.

FWIW, I think this is a good list to debate these topics.
(While at the same time disagreeing with the proponents
of the purported blocklist.)

My main reason is that there seem to be reasonable people
who are otherwise engaged with this list/HRPC and who are
arguing different sides. That seems to me like a fertile
setup so worth exploring, regardless of whether or not we've
identified a PhD-worthy research topic. (If the RG chairs
continue to disagree that's fine by me but I'd love a ptr
to where discussion continues as I of course want to keep
arguing against:-)

I'm also still perplexed as to how any blocklist could ever
be governed in an open multi-stakeholder manner though and
have yet to see arguments (here or elsewhere) as to how
that's even possible. If (as I think for now) that's a
killer argument against this proposition, then it'd IMO
be good to see that argument approach resolution somewhere.

Cheers,
S.

PS: Apologies for introducing the string "**SPAM**" into
the subject line - our dept migrated to using an external
mail service provider last year and while that's had some
good effects, one of the crap ones is that mail gets badly
classified according to unknowable blocklists and robots
into spam/ham. And I forgot to edit the polluted subject
line, sorry.