GM Rules for Radicals No. 11
🔥1
Wordcels out in force, using the same old arguments.
Arguments for which regular retards fail to see their flaws
Bad censoring involves not 2 participants, Bob and Sally,
but instead minimum 3 participants, Bob, Sally, and Frank.
Bad censoring involves Sally, perhaps using her monopolized position of control, to restrict Frank from being able to consume what he demands to be able to consume from Bob.
Supplier, Intermediary, Consumer.
3 minimum.
Not just 2, Supplier and Intermediary. 2 makes no fing sense, obviously.
2-participant framing leads to absurd conclusions like that no one can ever block clear spam and attacks, absurd.
3-participant framing clears all those contradictions right up.
Reframed this way, we see bad censoring as misbehavior enabled by poorly allocated monopolization of control.
Arguments for which regular retards fail to see their flaws
Bad censoring involves not 2 participants, Bob and Sally,
but instead minimum 3 participants, Bob, Sally, and Frank.
Bad censoring involves Sally, perhaps using her monopolized position of control, to restrict Frank from being able to consume what he demands to be able to consume from Bob.
Supplier, Intermediary, Consumer.
3 minimum.
Not just 2, Supplier and Intermediary. 2 makes no fing sense, obviously.
2-participant framing leads to absurd conclusions like that no one can ever block clear spam and attacks, absurd.
3-participant framing clears all those contradictions right up.
Reframed this way, we see bad censoring as misbehavior enabled by poorly allocated monopolization of control.
👏1