🚀 go-pugleaf

jerrywlRemove@hotmail.com wrote...
:
:tmill06@ibm.net (Timothy J. Miller) wrote:
:
:>jerrywlRemove@hotmail.com (Jerry) writes:
:>
:>>Further, the fact that most users don't choose to pay extra for an
:>>uncensored feed does not mean that they *chose * the censored feed
:>>that their ISP may have included.
:>
:>	It most certainly does.
:>
:>	We make it plainly known that our news service is aggressively
:>spam filtered, with x-posting limits and article-size caps and no HTML
:>posting allowed.  If they stay, or don't seek USENET access elsewhere,
:>it's because they choose to.
:
:Are those facts stated in the account description which is the
:document most people will read (if any) when deciding to subscribe to
:your service?
:
:Do you also make it "plainly known" that you accept content-based
:cancels from people like Rosenthal who issues content-based cancels
:against posts that don't even come close to exceeding the BI?

  No they don't--they are quite crooked.

:
:Do you make it "plainly known" that if your users use a group such the
:austin.* groups and someone under the censorship of  Rosenthal's
:"name-based", "provider-based" filters trashes them, they'll never
:even know it?
:
:Do you make it "plainly known" that the original purpose of cancel
:messages was for users to take back their own words and that by using
:that mechanism for other purposes you are contributing to the
:proliferation of servers who reject cancels outright such that the
:effectiveness of "taking back your own words" is shrinking daily (due
:to the "creative" use of cmsgs)?
:
:Since you seem think that users might choose an ISP *solely* on the
:basis of whether or not they accept cancels, are you conveying the
:importance of considering the acceptance of cancel messages at sign up
:time?
:
:==========
:
:I contend that very few people choosing their first ISP even know what
:a cancel message is (if they even know what usenet is).
:
:I contend that changing providers (after discovering the cancel issue
:and deciding against the ISP's policy (whatever it is)) is not as
:trivial as you seem to want us to believe and any ISP would be foolish
:to take the position that changing providers is trivial.
:
:I contend that very few users realize that other people can cancel
:their messages and further, that some people are using bots to do so
:and that some of those people are doing so to further a personal
:agenda having nothing to do with the commonly accepted definition of
:SPAM.
:
:I contend that of the small % of users who do know that 3rd party
:cancels exist, most think that they are *only* used to cancel
:commercial messages crossposted (vertically or not) to many groups (a
:common user's definition of SPAM).
:
:>	Remember the Rush lyrics, "If you choose not to decide, you still
:>have made a choice."
:
:Surely you're not contending that most users are made aware that
:cancels are an issue and given a choice to either accept the default
:(which you'd probably load as accept) or opt to do all of their own
:filtering (a choice it sounds like you do not even offer).
:
:Are you posting as an official of ibm.net and if so, will you give me
:permission to send every ibm.net customer information about the issue
:of cancels and a list of providers who do not accept cancels so that
:they may choose:
:
:1) To remain because they want *you* to decide what they can read.
:
:2) To change providers (even though it's a pain in the ass) because
:they want to make their own decisions about what to read/filter.
:
:3) "Not to decide" and get their feed filtered by you by default.
:
:? 
:
:If you won't give me permission to do so, will you do it yourself?
:I'll put together a list of providers who don't accept cancels for you
:if you'd like.
:
:==========
:
:Note: 
:
:My choice would be (and is) to filter spam (preferably at the server
:level - at my option) but the present 3rd party cancel abuses have
:caused me to oppose *any* provider filtering whatsoever. If you claim
:to be a "spam fighter" get these power tripping leeches (like
:Rosenthal) in a distinct category. They're pulling you down!
:
:You have the potential to be the admin of an egalitarian form of
:communication. If you want to expand your *control* to make those who
:"own the presses" more equal than the users, then I'll just watch TV
:which does a much more entertaining job of maintaining that same
:position of superiority over me.
:
:I'm quite aware that I could run my own news server software... I
:neither want to be controlled nor be in control of others! Is that 
:too difficult to understand? 


  ibm.net is not a respectable or honest service provider--they
censor their feed quite heavily and their users don't have
the right of response when quoted (because they won't even
see the post often times).

                        Steve
                        news.admin.censorship

:
:-- 
:jw
: