IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Mod-discuss] Re: WG Last call for draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Wed, 27 August 2025 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
X-Original-To: mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486B059B1F8C for <mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT=0.34, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLWj_2-fvpDM for <mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF3B859B1F87 for <mod-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 770367 invoked by uid 1010); 27 Aug 2025 15:01:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 27 Aug 2025 15:01:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 62853 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Aug 2025 15:01:34 -0000
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:01:34 -0000
Message-ID: <20250827150134.62851.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: mod-discuss@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: mod-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <LV8PR11MB85369E9AAFCF32155C49CF1EB538A@LV8PR11MB8536.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID-Hash: IG2EAJWWKHQ6QFPP5EVGUX3EHGG5MDCI
X-Message-ID-Hash: IG2EAJWWKHQ6QFPP5EVGUX3EHGG5MDCI
X-MailFrom: djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-0; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-1; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-2; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-3; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-4; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-5; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-6; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Mod-discuss] Re: WG Last call for draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10
List-Id: Discussion list for IETF moderation policies and practices <mod-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mod-discuss/MfycSLaY-BNwo_bawIKSmaOff_s>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mod-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:mod-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mod-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mod-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mod-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mod-discuss-leave@ietf.org>

Rob Wilton (rwilton) writes:
> I would presume that the point that Eliot is making is that is someone
> doesn’t agree with a moderation decision then they always have the
> choice of appealing

Well, sure, there's something labeled as an appeals process, but I was
asking for clarification of (1) the claim that company X censoring
company Y "surely would be caught" and (2) the claim that this has been
tested.

Concretely, say Y appeals the censorship and correctly accuses X of
censoring Y to damage Y's position in the marketplace, but X responds by
falsely claiming that X's goal is to "maintain decorum". Has company X
been "caught"? What does "caught" mean here? How has this been tested?

---D. J. Bernstein

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status