🚀 go-pugleaf

In news.admin.misc, Dave Hayes <dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@cs.stanford.edu> writes:

>> Which is quite understandable, given people like Cat who think they own
>> the Internet and have a God-given right to use other people's computers.

> Why do you think this is?

> Like it or not, the net is about communication. When someone's
> communication is blocked, that person tends to get a little testy.

That's the point, Dave; it wasn't.  She could have just used AOL's posting
service.  If she weren't out pursuing a Cause, this wouldn't have been a
problem in the first place.

> You can't provide a service ("millions of people communicating
> many-to-many"), selectively restrict that service based on some arbitrary
> standard, and still call yourself providing a service.

Funny, we seem to be doing fairly well.  Okay, I recommend that no news
administrator say that they are providing a service according to your
definitions of providing and service.  Then we can go on running things the
way they are now and the definition problem will be solved.

> This is why I keep saying you people don't understand free speech.

Your free speech, no.  We like our version, and it works great for us.  Why
should we bother with yours?  If it ain't broke....

>> Perhaps people should use the service they're paying for rather than
>> trying to mooch off other people, then.

> Do you realize just how controlling the "those who have money make the
> rules" paradigm is?

Ignoring for the moment that she had a news service she'd already paid for
and was just refusing to use it....  No, I don't.  I'm not sure I
particularly care, though.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@cs.stanford.edu)     http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/