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

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> writes:

> Ironically, advising *others* how *they* should follow Postel’s
> principle is exactly the opposite of the principle.

Really it's not. The exact opposite would be

"Be conservative in what you accept, liberal in what you send".

There's nothing in Postel's Principle that keeps people from explaining the principle to others or how it might map to their situation. It would be a fairly useless principle if that were the case.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 00:44 Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     This is the argument about Postel's principle (conservative in
>     what you send, liberal in what you accept) in layer 9.
>     It seems to me that Facebook is doing just fine slowing down (24
>     hours) the possible propagation of violence incitement without
>     requiring a lot of judgement on what does or does not constitute
>     thoughtful vs. inciteful speech.
>
>     "Kill them all and let TCP sort it out" can readily be expressed
>     in other terms. A content moderation policy that slowed down
>     frequent postings (by 24 hours) might temper heated conversations
>     and lead to calmer considerations of the actual requirements.
>
>     > I hereby propose we censor Facebook engineers in IETF meetings
>     for promoting stupidity.
>
>     Can public forums improve the quality of discussion by delaying
>     frequent, divisive posters?
>     Is trying to do so really  "promoting stupidity"? (Obligatory 😊)
>
>     --
>     https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org