[linux-elitists] Proposal: Roster accessible to subscribers

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Mar 26 10:06:37 PDT 2009


Quoting Tilghman Lesher (zgp-org at the-tilghman.com):

> Yes, but asking users to take action to avoid exposing their addresses
> isn't elitism -- it's the lowest form of human activity, mainly
> advanced by the Internet marketers and spammers.

And, no doubt, if the telcos had negligently -- NOT as a result of a
"commitment" as you and Mr. Anderson would apparently have it -- failed 
to publish telephone directories for a decade, you'd no doubt think them
honour bound to secure explicit permission from each customer before
publishing their telephone numbers.

(Historical tidbit:  It actually _was_ the case in the Soviet Union that
they didn't publish telephone books.  I'm sure the Russian Federation
have had their own little Tilghman Leshers and D. Joe Andersons, trying to
convince everyone that ceasing that practice was immoral.)

Most fundamentally, you are buying into Joe Anderson's fallacy, that Don
undertook a trust, when in fact he happened, on his own, to set a
configuration option that is neither normally expected nor the software
default.

> I also don't really care what Don decides to do with regards to this
> policy...

So, great:  We have about eight people who've said they don't object to
their addresses being default-shown (with an option to toggle "hidden")
in a subscriber-viewable roster.  Of those, two express theoretical
moral outrage on behalf of theoretically objecting subscribers who have
steadfastly failed, after being invited, to indicate their existence,
even privately to the listadmin.

Anyone else?


> Anything else would be hypocritical.

I suspect that "hypocritical according to Tilghman Lesher" will become
a popular endorsement phrase for the new era, sort of like "banned in
Scotland" was in the days of Monty Python films.


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list