🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:10:27 -0000 "Dave Korn" 
>Kate wrote in message <3jnp4u84t2hjcu0mftnp9ale406lml7ccf@4ax.com>...

>>Yes. I don't think the peeps who cancel things consider content, but
>>who knows.

>  Well, nobody *truly* knows, but it's fairly easy to track down stuff
>that's being cancelled and see who cancelled it and whether it really was
>massposted spam or not.  People are often accusing the spamcancellers of
>being censors and trying to drop hints that they (the cancellers) hide
>cancels of messages they want to censor for personal or political
>motivations here and there among the spamcancels.  But the people who shout
>loudest about this never provide the slightest little bit of evidence, which
>would be easy to do if it really was happening.

Actually, Jet wrote a very nice and complete explanation of how this
is done by 'official' cancellers such as Andrew Gierth. I archived it,
if you'd like I can repost it into nanau, if it's ok with her.

As far as rogue cancellers go, who knows what their motivations are?

>  During the US elections t'other year, there were quite a few
>politically-motivated spam runs, and they all got cancelled, same as any
>other spam.

It's interesting how it's done.

>  I'm betting that if there had been even the slightest *appearance* of bias
>or anything less than 100%-evenhandedness from any of the spamcancellers,
>the media-monitoring teams (of whichever side the spam was in favour of)
>would *still* be here today, kicking up a fuss about it.  There wasn't a
>peep out of any of the political parties over the issue though.

Hmm. I wonder how much flack spam cancellers get over censorship
issues -- other than from the obvious source.