What is the next spurious excuse to censor a post?

[Fredxx]

https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-17012133086111.txt

This is a competition to spot the HTML:

From: Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid>
In-Reply-To: <uk5l2s$e8eu$1...@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 28/11/2023 21:11, Pancho wrote:
> On 11/28/23 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>> On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
>>>>> <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>> The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to
>>>>>>> "hurt"
>>>>>>> Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis
>>>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the
>>>>>> means to
>>>>>> hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
>>>>>> probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to
>>>>> attack the
>>>>> German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to
>>>>> *then*
>>>>> the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean
this,
>>>>> which I
>>>>> doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of
>>>>> Palestinians.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a
>>>> lawyer.
>>>>
>>>> Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up
until the
>>>> ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent
>>>> from the guilty.
>>>>
>>>> Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
>>>> preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the
lives
>>>> of the gentile population.
>>>
>>> Hmm.
>>> Â Â https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
>>>
>>> In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
>>> late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
>>> was directed at the banking community of it's time.
>>>
>>> It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being
>>> destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
>>
>> "This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
>> of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
>> problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
>> soaring inflation."Â That last phrase is the closest thing in that
>> abstract to banking.
>>
>
> Some banks in Germany Collapsed in 1931 and that is often cited as a
> major cause of the rise in Nazi popularity.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_banking_crisis_of_1931>
>
>> In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
>> Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
>> Roald Dahl.
>>
>
> Perhaps you could explain what Roald Dahl quote you mean, and what you
> think was bad about it.

I think this may enlighten you. I don't know enough to say whether he
was genuinely anti-jew, or if the mere suggestion there were reasons why
members of the faith are disliked is sufficient:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/roald-dahl-apology-anti-semitism/2020/12/22/b1d34df8-40a2-11eb-8db8-395dedaaa036_story.html

[Pancho]

On 29/11/2023 18:47, Fredxx wrote:
> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-17012133086111.txt
>
> This is a competition to spot the HTML:
>

So snip it, as I should have done, and resubmit.

I don't see the problem.

[Roger Hayter]

On 29 Nov 2023 at 18:47:57 GMT, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:

> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-17012133086111.txt

I agree, there is no obvious reason to reject this post, and I can't see any
HTML in it!

Rejection could have been a mistake, the reason certainly was!

Perhaps a moderator will elucidate.


On the substantive point, ascribing an objectionable manner or a behaviour to
a whole religion or race is obviously offensive; there are no races or
religions whose members all or mostly behave in a particular way. The owners
of Dahl's rights are wise to acknowledge this. In fact, his children's books
are largely creepy and offensive, so I would be all for his being cancelled.



--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-11-29, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2023 at 18:47:57 GMT, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-17012133086111.txt
>
> I agree, there is no obvious reason to reject this post, and I can't see any
> HTML in it!
>
> Rejection could have been a mistake, the reason certainly was!
>
> Perhaps a moderator will elucidate.

"misclick" would be my guess.

[Roland Perry]

In message <kspjuq...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:06:50 on Wed, 29
Nov 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-17012133086111.txt
>
>I agree, there is no obvious reason to reject this post, and I can't see any
>HTML in it!
>
>Rejection could have been a mistake, the reason certainly was!
>
>Perhaps a moderator will elucidate.

As has been explained numerous time before, it's the least-worst of the
available boxes to tick when what it means is "The moderator doesn't
have sufficient time/energy to follow the HTML link and see if the
potentially controversial content it leads to is suitable to be posted
in ulm.

At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an idea what's there.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

It has been mentioned an equal number of times that a plain text hyperlink has
no html involved with it, and indeed a hyperlink does not have to lead to a
site using html. And that therefore it is an absurd and inappropriate reason
for rejecting a post because it only contains a link to another document. I do
realise that a hyperlink referring to a well-known author's anti-semitism is
potentially risky, but how about off topic or insufficient new material?

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Would you like me to set up a web site that serves only the plain text (or a
.odf file for that matter) of Dahl's quote? Then Fredxx can link to it and
*there will be no HTML involved at either end*.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <ksummh...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:24:17 on Fri, 1 Dec

2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>On 1 Dec 2023 at 17:35:33 GMT, "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <kspjuq...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:06:50 on Wed, 29
>> Nov 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>
>>>>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-170121
>>>>33086111.txt
>>>
>>> I agree, there is no obvious reason to reject this post, and I can't see any
>>> HTML in it!
>>>
>>> Rejection could have been a mistake, the reason certainly was!
>>>
>>> Perhaps a moderator will elucidate.
>>
>> As has been explained numerous time before, it's the least-worst of the
>> available boxes to tick when what it means is "The moderator doesn't
>> have sufficient time/energy to follow the HTML link and see if the
>> potentially controversial content it leads to is suitable to be posted
>> in ulm.
>>
>> At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an idea what's there.
>
>It has been mentioned an equal number of times that a plain text hyperlink has
>no html involved with it,

But nevertheless, it's the closest reason for rejection available.

>and indeed a hyperlink does not have to lead to a site using html.

But the vast majority do.

>And that therefore it is an absurd and inappropriate reason
>for rejecting a post because it only contains a link to another document.

ht = hypertext.

>I do realise that a hyperlink referring to a well-known author's
>anti-semitism is potentially risky, but how about off topic or
>insufficient new material?

Without following the link (which is what isn't realistically possible)
neither of those reasons has legs.
--
Roland Perry

[Pancho]

I don't see why mods have to check links to well known sites, such as
The Washington Post?

If you don't like urls, how would the mods like us to give citations?

Sorry if I have forgotten a previous explanation.

[Roger Hayter]

On the contrary, if you don't want to follow the link then you have seen no
new material at all!

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Especially if you are linking to paywalled sites like the Washington Post it
is only polite to other posters, as well as helpful to the moderator, to
summarise what the linked article says.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <kt1f17...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:31:51 on Sat, 2 Dec

I expect people would complain just as much if postings comprising in
effect just a url were all automatically rejected as "insufficient new
material". Or are you suggesting we give it a go, just to see what
happens?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <kt1f5v...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:23 on Sat, 2 Dec

There should be no need to expend a lot of effort. Professional
journalists in the USA are trained to write articles which can if need
be truncated from the bottom up, and still make some sort of sense if as
little as only the first paragraph remains.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ukfrsm$2evo8$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:09:27 on Sat, 2 Dec
2023, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> remarked:

>On 01/12/2023 17:35, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <kspjuq...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:06:50 on Wed, 29
>>Nov 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>
>>>>https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-170121
>>>>33086111.txt
>>>
>>> I agree, there is no obvious reason to reject this post, and I can't
>>>see any
>>> HTML in it!
>>>
>>> Rejection could have been a mistake, the reason certainly was!
>>>
>>> Perhaps a moderator will elucidate.

>> As has been explained numerous time before, it's the least-worst of
>>the available boxes to tick when what it means is "The moderator
>>doesn't have sufficient time/energy to follow the HTML link and see
>>if the potentially controversial content it leads to is suitable to
>>be posted in ulm.

>> At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an idea what's
>>there.
>
>I don't see why mods have to check links to well known sites, such as
>The Washington Post?

Oh, so now we need to have a list of "well known sites". Is for example
GB-News well known enough? Or did you mean "sufficiently well known as
an impartial publication".

>If you don't like urls, how would the mods like us to give citations?
>
>Sorry if I have forgotten a previous explanation.

Which bit of "At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an idea
what's there" did you not understand?
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

I am suggesting that calling a brief post in plain text with a plain text URL
unacceptable because of HTML is really confusing, wrong and quite annoying. I
wouldn't object to "insufficient new material", I can't speak for anyone else.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

On 03/12/2023 07:32, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ukfrsm$2evo8$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:09:27 on Sat, 2 Dec
> 2023, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> remarked:
>> On 01/12/2023 17:35, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <kspjuq...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:06:50 on Wed, 29
>>> Nov 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-170121
>>>>> 33086111.txt
>>>>
>>>> I agree, there is no obvious reason to reject this post, and I can't
>>>> see any
>>>> HTML in it!
>>>>
>>>> Rejection could have been a mistake, the reason certainly was!
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a moderator will elucidate.
>
>>>  As has been explained numerous time before, it's the least-worst of
>>> the  available boxes to tick when what it means is "The moderator
>>> doesn't  have sufficient time/energy to follow the HTML link and see
>>> if the  potentially controversial content it leads to is suitable to
>>> be posted  in ulm.
>
>>>  At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an idea what's there.
>>
>> I don't see why mods have to check links to well known sites, such as
>> The Washington Post?
>
> Oh, so now we need to have a list of "well known sites". Is for example
> GB-News well known enough? Or did you mean "sufficiently well known as
> an impartial publication".
>

GB-News is fine. I don't see where impartiality comes into it. FWIW, I
think the Washington Post is very biased.

You don't need a list of “well known sites”, because they are well known.

>> If you don't like urls, how would the mods like us to give citations?
>>
>> Sorry if I have forgotten a previous explanation.
>
> Which bit of "At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an idea
> what's there" did you not understand?

From your previous post, I assumed the imperative was to check for
“controversial content”, and that this meant fit for publication. Hence,
my point was that anything from a mainstream source would be safe,
already checked.

If, as a moderator, you want to check other characteristics such as
relevance to the thread, I agree with the decision to reject it. If you
rejected it because posting a URL without an explanation is just plain
irritating, I agree with this too.

FWIW, the cite was irrelevant, focusing on a different issue than the
acceptability of Dahl's comments. As an aside, it attempted to present
that Dahl's comment were wrong as axiomatic, which was my initial
objection. This is typical for dogma. People cite dogma, refuse to
explain it, and often post irrelevant stuff as if it establishes the
truth of the dogma. I got sick of this at school, “if you just read
this, you will see the light, and believe in Jesus”.

[Pamela]

This is a good idea. IMHO.

[Fredxx]

The URL works fine if you turn JavaScript off. I have it turned off
automatically for some websites and indeed I didn't realise that the
article is otherwise behind a paywall.

I use: Disable JavaScript (v2.3.1)

I also thought the Washington Post website would be pretty safe and that
the explanation would be interesting for some, but of course an anathema
to others.

[Fredxx]

On 01/12/2023 17:35, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <kspjuq...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:06:50 on Wed, 29
> Nov 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>
>>> https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-17012133086111.txt
>>
>> I agree, there is no obvious reason to reject this post, and I can't
>> see any
>> HTML in it!
>>
>> Rejection could have been a mistake, the reason certainly was!
>>
>> Perhaps a moderator will elucidate.
>
> As has been explained numerous time before, it's the least-worst of the
> available boxes to tick when what it means is "The moderator doesn't
> have sufficient time/energy to follow the HTML link and see if the
> potentially controversial content it leads to is suitable to be posted
> in ulm.

Then leave it to one that has an interest rather than censoring articles
you'd rather not read, or be read.

> At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an idea what's there.

With respect, an explanation was given, and I believed the article would
have been enlightening to Pancho, and hopefully others too.

[Fredxx]

If you look at the rejected post you would have seen there was an
explanation of the article's contents. There was simply too much to
extract.

Perhaps you recommend that next time I'll copy and paste the whole
article to avoid any future issue?

[Andy Burns]

Fredxx wrote:

> The URL works fine if you turn JavaScript off. I have it turned off
> automatically for some websites and indeed I didn't realise that the
> article is otherwise behind a paywall.

Many websites which have "simplistic" paywalls that can be circumvented
by disabling javascript, can just as easily be bypassed by using reader
mode

for Firefox or Edge just press F9

for Chrome enable chrome://flags/#read-anything and then see the side panel.

[Roger Hayter]

A short summary would be good, especially if one happens to be reading Usenet
on a computer without a GUI. Modern web sites are a bit impenetrable to
text-based browsers, if indeed the latter still exist.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pamela]

My comment was not made with reference to your original post but to posts
with links in general .

The amount you choose to quote depends on the circumstances. I suspect
there's a copyright problem if you post the whole article, even though it
would be very convenient for the reader.

[billy bookcase]

"Pancho" <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote in message news:ukfrsm$2evo8$1...@dont-email.me...

> I don't see why mods have to check links to well known sites, such as The Washington
> Post?

Ah right. So who maintains and regularly updates the list of "well known sites" ?

>
> Sorry if I have forgotten a previous explanation.

What explanation ?


bb

[billy bookcase]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:T650mPil...@perry.uk...

IOW Rule/Box n+1 No Blind Links *

Which some might like to see adopted for the whole of UseNet.

"In your dreams Sunshine!"

"Who put you in charge ?

"Just try and stop me !"


bb

* More especially Youtube links to 45 minute "lectures" by knuckle
draggers of varying persuasions

[billy bookcase]

"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:uki1ah$2s7u5$3...@dont-email.me...

> With respect, an explanation was given, and I believed the article would have been
> enlightening to Pancho, and hopefully others too.

Whereas, with even greater respect, according to Pancho....

"Pancho" <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote in message news:ukhjn4$2qb27$1...@dont-email.me...

> FWIW, the cite was irrelevant, focusing on a different issue than the
> acceptability of Dahl's comments. As an aside, it attempted to present
> that Dahl's comment were wrong as axiomatic, which was my initial objection.
> This is typical for dogma

To repeat "irrelevant", "dogma" rather than "hopefully enlightening"

But apart from that....



bb

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-12-03, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:
> From your previous post, I assumed the imperative was to check for
> “controversial content”, and that this meant fit for publication. Hence,
> my point was that anything from a mainstream source would be safe,
> already checked.

Not "controversial" - libellous. So yes anything from a mainstream
*UK* source would be pretty safe (not sure I would include GB News
in that category), but of course in the USA it's much harder to be
sued for libel so US links are not necessarily safe for us even if
they're from well-known sources.

> If, as a moderator, you want to check other characteristics such as
> relevance to the thread, I agree with the decision to reject it. If you
> rejected it because posting a URL without an explanation is just plain
> irritating, I agree with this too.

I agree that *can* be reasonable, but it depends. But then bear in
mind that I just now posted an article which contained nothing but
a link! (Because the link is made up of clear English words, which
form the phrase I wanted to highlight, so posting those same words
again before or after the link seemed like pointless repetition.)

[Simon Parker]

This is known as the "Inverted Pyramid" style of writing and is, IME,
used by the majority of journalists, not just those in America.

There's even a Wikipedia article on it, so prevalent is it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

Regards

S.P.

[Roland Perry]

In message <kt6gnq...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:31:37 on Mon, 4 Dec
2023, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

It doesn't seem to be much in evidence in the UK, sadly.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <kt2ul6...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:38 on Sun, 3 Dec

That's a very roundabout way of saying "Yes". So maybe I will give it a
go. But I can virtually guarantee people will come back and say "what do
you mean - insufficient new material - the contents of that web page are
full of it"
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ukhjn4$2qb27$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:02:12 on Sun, 3 Dec

I picked GB-News as it appears to have a reputation for bias (or don't
you watch HIGNFY).

>You don't need a list of “well known sites”, because they are well known.

Don't be absurd. There are hundreds of news sites, and it's unrealistic
to expect moderators to be familiar with the editorial policies of
almost all of them.

>>> If you don't like urls, how would the mods like us to give citations?
>>>
>>> Sorry if I have forgotten a previous explanation.

>> Which bit of "At the *very least* quote some extracts to give an
>>idea what's there" did you not understand?
>
>From your previous post, I assumed the imperative was to check for
>“controversial content”, and that this meant fit for publication.
>Hence, my point was that anything from a mainstream source would be
>safe, already checked.

And I fundamentally disagree with that notion.

"Fit to publish" at their risk on their website is quite different to
"fit to republish on ulm".

>If, as a moderator, you want to check other characteristics such as
>relevance to the thread, I agree with the decision to reject it. If you
>rejected it because posting a URL without an explanation is just plain
>irritating, I agree with this too.
>
>FWIW, the cite was irrelevant, focusing on a different issue than the
>acceptability of Dahl's comments. As an aside, it attempted to present
>that Dahl's comment were wrong as axiomatic, which was my initial
>objection. This is typical for dogma. People cite dogma, refuse to
>explain it, and often post irrelevant stuff as if it establishes the
>truth of the dogma. I got sick of this at school, “if you just read
>this, you will see the light, and believe in Jesus”.

We don't have the time to go into every ulm submission in detail like
that.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <uki14m$2s7u5$2...@dont-email.me>, at 13:51:18 on Sun, 3 Dec
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

You can think what you like, but externalising the effort of making such
a decision to the moderators isn't scaleable.
--
Roland Perry

[Pancho]

On 06/12/2023 07:18, Roland Perry wrote:

[snip]

>>>> I don't see why mods have to check links to well known sites, such
>>>> as  The Washington Post?
>
>>>  Oh, so now we need to have a list of "well known sites". Is for
>>> example  GB-News well known enough? Or did you mean "sufficiently
>>> well known as  an impartial publication".
>>
>> GB-News is fine. I don't see where impartiality comes into it. FWIW, I
>> think the Washington Post is very biased.
>
> I picked GB-News as it appears to have a reputation for bias (or don't
> you watch HIGNFY).
>

I don't have a TV licence, and haven't watched HIGNFY since the start of
GB-News, but I do know what each of them are about. I accept GB-News is
biased.

I meant bias wasn't supposed to be a concern of ulm moderation.

>> You don't need a list of “well known sites”, because they are well known.
>
> Don't be absurd. There are hundreds of news sites, and it's unrealistic
> to expect moderators to be familiar with the editorial policies of
> almost all of them.
>

By “well known” I meant the ones you do actually know, personally. This
list may differ from moderator to moderator, but I would expect The
Washington Post to be known to all moderators. Like the Times, The
Telegraph, The Guardian, Le Figaro, Le Monde, The New York Times, The
Daily Bugle, Haaretz, Al Jazeera, and Der Spiegel.

The only common editorial policy that is relevant is that the stuff they
publish is fit for publication. i.e. you should know that posting a link
to them will not get ulm mods into hot water.


[snip]

>>
>> From your previous post, I assumed the imperative was to check for
>> “controversial content”, and that this meant fit for publication.
>> Hence, my point was that anything from a mainstream source would be
>> safe, already checked.
>
> And I fundamentally disagree with that notion.
>
> "Fit to publish" at their risk on their website is quite different to
> "fit to republish on ulm".
>

Curious? In what way unfit for ulm?

[Roland Perry]

In message <ul42sg$2kkhc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:11:28 on Sun, 10 Dec
2023, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> remarked:

I don't trust any of the publications you mention to review their
articles taking into account whether it would get the ulm mods into
trouble, rather than merely getting themselves into trouble. Some of
them might even resent the republication on the grounds of copyright
infringement.
--
Roland Perry

[Pamela]

For some sites disabling Javascript doesn't work.

I currently get problems with http://archive.today because it no longer
validates Captchas on connections made via Couldflare's DNS server
(1.1.1.1, and others) or Quad9 (9.9.9.9, etc). The result I get on my PC
is a Captcha loop.

At least that's the explanation given in this Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/118haqg/archiveph_webpage_a
rchive_as_site_is/

Rather than tweak the settings as described in the first reply, I tried
his other suggestion of using different DNS resolver servers but with no
luck.

(Not forgetting clearing the DNS cache and disabling the "hosts" file).