[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Nathan]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
> any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
> acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
>
> As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the
> indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will
> convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.
>
>
> - d.
>


It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your
constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and
diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the
opposition in favor of the "larger audience" could then be quite
reasonable.

Nathan