[ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list

[Robert Bradbury]

Max has asked me to explain my recent comment comment comparing the ExiCh
moderation policies to gestapo policies.

First of all, let me suggest that was a little bit far even for me.  But it
is my nature to be very passionate (with respect to my convictions) -- and I
will tend to stretch analogies in order to make a point.  First of all my
comment was related to the moderation of a very heated debate which I think
took place circa 2006-2007 time-frame and it was the primary reason that I
discontinued any significant contribution to the ExICh list.  I believe the
moderators at that time were Eugen and Spike (and Max was to my knowledge
was not involved).  And I do agree that the moderation then, as now, is very
mild (bordering on not even present).

But as a person of conviction, I happen to believe in the first article of
the Bill of Rights, e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof [1]; OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [2], .." should be taken very seriously.
 And as I happen to have grown up in Massachusetts and happen to have walked
along the trail of the Minitueman and happen to have ancestors who came into
MA circa 1634  -- and presumably some of my ancestors fought in the
Revolutionary War.-- I happen to take the matters for which they fought, and
perhaps died for, VERY SERIOUSLY.

Now obviously an email list can adopt whatever policies it likes -- so in
that respect it does not have the limits or guidelines placed on it that the
U.S. Congress has (an email list, perhaps in contrast to a blog, is
effectively a dictatorship)..  At the other end of the spectrum one could go
into posts to social networking, blogs or news commentary pages that allow
anonymous posts that possibly allow defamatory and/or personally damaging
posts (which given the fact that unsubstantiated claims propagate is
presumably not a good thing).  And the ExICh list is notable in that it
allows "outside of the box" or "off the cuff" thinking.  (For example, I
recently gave up participating in the GRG list due to the fact that  one or
more individuals objected to the colorful language that I may have used in
regard to one or more posts -- I believe with respect to something which was
NOT worthy of consideration -- something those of you who know me know I
have a very low tolerance of).  And thus I became disinvolved with
contributing to the GRG list.  For similar reasons (with regard to unclear
moderation policies) I became disinvolved with the ExICh list several years
ago.

The point of a moderated list would presumably be to minimize the exposure
of the list to defamation lawsuits, and in some cases "accuracy" statements
(say the Raelians were to start auto-cross-posting their fluff. [2]).  But I
am unaware of such a policy being explicitly cast in bronze.  In other cases
I should view any moderation policy needing to be clearly stated (so one
clearly understands what restrictions one has that are less than the U.S.
Congress.)  And there should be a "board of appeals" -- in that if ones
moderated post is rejected one can subject it to independent scrutiny (and
where extremely necessary censorship).  (This is common behavior in the film
industry which IMO is not a good model for distribution restrictions but may
be a good model for self-imposed censorship).


But I do remain resolute in that undefined moderation policies border on
gestapo policies (though the intent in the analogy is problematic) is not to
detract from ExICh policies but to perhaps encourage their gradual
solutions. For the first thing one wants to kill in a free society is
Freedom of Speech -- precisely because that represents a threat (China, and
to a lesser extent Iran, being the current primary examples).  And the
moderators [at least to my knowledge] have not published which specific
censorship rules they use. And so what is viewed as a "threat" or even
"defamatory" is unclear. There is of course "Common Informed Censorship" but
unlike other authorities we do not know what this is (it may shift from
individual to individual as the moderation shifts ( So I may (or may not)
view the ExICh llist as little different from a CIA chat list.

I would strongly suspect that a topic entitled "Strategies to assassinate
the President" would be unacceptable to the moderators.   And yet why?  Is
it not the exercise of Free Speech?  The ExICh list really needs to break
down in detail acceptable vs. unacceptable list policies (that presumably
the moderators are attempting to mediate).  (Because I know that there are
list members who could come up with creative solutions to this question --
which means I should ask them in personal communications and not on the
list).  But merely stating this probably puts ExICh on the "watch list" even
if it isn't already there.

Max & Spike, I apologize for opening the debate but I believe you both know
me well enough that I will not draw back from engaging discussion.  And it
prompts the topic of things which seriously need to be thought about.

Robert

1. Which considering the extent to which religions go about in brain-washing
individuals who are incapable of reasoned or informed thought (i.e.
children) is unconscioncable.
2. Note that I do not consider to be the Raelians perspective of the
colonization of Earth impossible.  I consider it to be one of a number of
probable realities which must be thought about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091205/7fc9b9b3/attachment.html>