Re: Why we really can't use Facebook for technical discussion.

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 07 June 2021 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0DD3A3DE8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16yc--1t4Mpb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AE443A3DE4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20EB5C01BE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:42:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:42:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=xX0UkUM42X58hWxDKXxS1yCdn4VF6yFA40QtubyF7 Yo=; b=WU7AmQAaL0jJfGgvG4A9yINu/een5Z967hcSNTVTDPmInPvmDdXZQLAL3 HB3FSlWlYdUGq19j9MD1rYTWtaALluqAnroRDCfzh8lsHQ0ZW+81GlIzcbPwuBYB o8/mIkDcczpEfqWp3iKodBFVBjgJgDEDjza9wBb7epx01hAer/f+O6qMJAPrAja3 eYfZADrWiWnLg0YupXDudJ46hvQxc12EPNvaepCMZp+JvazGIvbqNwauexBMQMYK fr/HjvbRil/zOwA/cnf4lpJxgCI393bMC7i5cECnn1yIu2LWrKn4pvNrw8EUq0pk TiRGw3lk5PT8gmiBipy9tUKg1XfxA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:aEy-YNu4nxkSRQIXna69XvEhTIsFeNrr77dGESad-hyC83pqE-EL_w> <xme:aEy-YGeT8AQZ0VrfN27qQlITqY8bf7LTkiOj2eCNstMPotNSaXS7QCVJjfZ7mfOYr SR_krInTStCIA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:aEy-YAylMWtK5HbEmoySeZkvY9-5Mwq4aqPnvYl8yn54YH9DMdptLT5uqq7_QZjA7RhXpPPklMqU5LLMdI8TqbuYiFnTxdeNmAnqlq5kz8ZbtzwRYj9Y>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedtjedguddtgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedthe efgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeefleelueeiffetfeeuudeunecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifoh hrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:aEy-YEN6XxIOhfAK8EeE83nKWUNI00chXijmncnixg6HiUUfNLF6Hg> <xmx:aEy-YN8Eh6ZdFQ8J1MKAltH-GZ1xS2iGmtkbv5Ux1nuLfRB-mZniug> <xmx:aEy-YEUJWJZVwFdurrGurM15PQiBSxaWmtj8UOX9UskfxrhTZDyhfQ> <xmx:aUy-YAJEXsrEfSdqoAkthVzub5AOAhCYJOGjc3uEEd3X0byasD1-MQ>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why we really can't use Facebook for technical discussion.
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <HJCFnRF4-BhmmY94naAXr7OwaHttkaKO4_PJx6u2V8ZyHKfo91h0wX96saMVs0sI6KM2vx-h6B-j1dGqj6XqneGrdw-smKRSp9LYfmYZGsg=@softarmor.com> <CALZ3u+a+ry4pd5eAB3QiboA2pwiVhTgc0D4Zte5_u+bj-GsonA@mail.gmail.com> <-Jo05E3w-YIEezoXLI6MpB83ZYosN9BemjreW0cpF-DKiwGfD1pdvjQNWNIRYKnfiqfQR46Ny1e5Ee2ppuMlGTLU1Jei_S4gcB1V9tc6YFI=@softarmor.com> <CAMm+LwgeZ787ae00+=fw8BP=n5OQ_TMsbtEeG16Zau=5O2Gxrg@mail.gmail.com> <4a05b42a-3ca5-0d13-0956-a66545906fe3@gih.com> <CAMm+Lwj1fB088mOULXOSDKf8LoCsUGbOSHNxfgoCws+VjfcO2A@mail.gmail.com> <1127625088.5911125.1623040315510@mail.yahoo.com> <CAMm+LwietoSsAih8FW+Y=83JcVWfu_HwpXfnUnzSS65OMLRs+A@mail.gmail.com> <699c932b-f90b-07d0-a64c-37881cd61342@network-heretics.com> <CAMm+LwiwvCdup0y7ruPSt5uM+uAQRwO+jCNu0Dscoh+8i_nkqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <37c1e066-9e48-1704-1867-0bec8a3c02bf@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:42:15 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiwvCdup0y7ruPSt5uM+uAQRwO+jCNu0Dscoh+8i_nkqA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fNV0Hu5xfk_6RUcVz8vsz0KZKGo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 16:42:25 -0000

On 6/7/21 11:31 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Slashdot has a rather less respectful audience yet their karma system 
> produces vastly better results. But the biggest takeaway for me is 
> that one size fits all does not work for curation or moderation.

Indeed, different communities have different standards for behavior, and 
necessarily so.   I've seen newcomers to a community struggle to fit in, 
only slowly realizing that the jokes that are well-received elsewhere 
are not considered appropriate in their new setting, and slowly grasping 
the new boundaries.   But the idea that there is or should be one 
universal standard for speech strikes me as ridiculous.   A subject that 
is taboo in one setting almost inherently is in need of examination 
somewhere.  (note that I did say "almost")

> We have known that content inspection is a failing strategy for spam 
> filtering for over 15 years, why apply it to enforce automatic bans on 
> individuals?
Indeed, part of the problem with that strategy is that it assumes that 
one size fits all.

Keith