Received: from localhost ([::1]:43724 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYdas-0001Hh-Ki; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:00:26 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:46391) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYdaL-0001GO-25 for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 11:59:54 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c78so999885ywb.13 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 11:59:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R2fIZairvIpmJEIARrtsdWb/vT4DAcsBOqrhg10w5Q4=; b=iPb4P5GVLZWHmTgQe3V6YbropN23vHsYadXGiteJz4whhs2Co3DlLiau9pG5gTOpUt wuGkmUMZiJ8AxUbTTXRgsWFirffzjl3NlZzEPKM1lH7q5257hIKauTIxOl7QZqal3vj7 n+Nwyn1OcYZ47RV5/D+RBgf9tqwlUDTAtbE1/m2djA2piLqfuYWpx+8bJXAtttjPAXV+ NMhw3PTmhZj4m0oGhqDFNM+VQQcw2Xin5bsUyTiZyM3ozoDNvBD9r6TU3OXPH1E9UtCa yJCUvWckHlhtzkdJ+XlduLcWFiYX6Q/Be5fU/GpJhLNUZqtTjihKdb2V+D5YWg0tK9Eu 9HzA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=R2fIZairvIpmJEIARrtsdWb/vT4DAcsBOqrhg10w5Q4=; b=QvkWoftwdvvRBaB3Eg2tUgz9OdWmWQMMgVJb4G+bCEl3/lq2jJhsBBhQxmw9TY5B+I rCb0LVt7fZQjzPc42UNoiQxuJx/P66ZI2M4VdHV8H4e4caJx1McgHhM319Imqmla4XJ3 VhVuYJlECvjq64efl2Yk6f2SBW3+ZkM9mZCSKvwXM9oRT+9vWfKMHpH3jkrhVfppLdaL JedLel1EmKvXMP8WKZ6T7vkZ3azLckAczDVimVhp82gIij/cXXQbvdTRC/uhNeLkeDqe QfliupBn9FLAbkW4F6nYwoUvsI7bL7srrB2Y6C153+fPpFYrU2JrdcKjORctIMl/noeg td7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJiXWzrmyi3fNDNVY3MZflXBbsnajLX2KQFNrpkzamvvMYtkISC twQl14jfT5StxRWKOEaXwWApVASzzu0TzPnm1m4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot6W0I68fXU3X7oje/zg6nmJlpxvtiJ5a8iy8nkyJg9EE2ulhYnf/gEfak70cdKwq2p9YFaKFyboFaYRYV0eXw= X-Received: by 10.13.244.3 with SMTP id d3mr11636376ywf.167.1515441586434; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 11:59:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:59:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:59:45 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Concerning Unofficial Social Media Presences X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0821046119612211928==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0821046119612211928== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19ccc06ff6570562493d23" --94eb2c19ccc06ff6570562493d23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Ah, I was trying to resolve your complaints from the other direction. Your proposal of just a single disclaimer on a definitivelyLLG-controlled resource/website is much more restrained. It is possible that my attempted solution would work well with it (as long as we avoid abuse/killing the community and recognize that it cannot get 'em all (but focusing on prominent problems could be good)). But I really have never been convinced that my proposal is a great one. Make that motion again. Since we are considering all of those things now, it would be good to have it in the mix. On Jan 8, 2018 04:02, "guskant" wrote: > I did not second the motion because it seems excessive for removing or > avoiding the current and the future disorder about what is the > official information. > > Anyone can create accounts on social media that may deceive people > into believing that it were owned by the LLG. The number of such > accounts should be finite but can be very large, and then it will be > too much work for a small group to investigate the nastiness of each > account. The problem can be solved in another way: if the LLG has an > official website and declare on the top page that the LLG does not own > any accounts on any social media, people will become aware of the > deceit. The real problem is that the LLG has no official website that > should be under control of the LLG, and therefore it is impossible > that the LLG would declare something on a top page of a website. > > Currently, the following information is out of control of the LLG, and > actually deceives people into believing that the information were > approved by the LLG: > > - All files under https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ that is a symbolic > link of Gleki's personal directory: > http://vrici.lojban.org/~gleki/mediawiki-1.19.2/extensions/ > - most of mediawiki or tiki pages under *.lojban.org that are managed > by volunteers with no rule > - All repositories of Gleki's la-lojban https://github.com/la-lojban , > some of which are published as web pages under > https://la-lojban.github.io/ . > - All repositories of the Lojban Coders' Group > https://github.com/lojban that are managed by volunteers with no rule, > some of which are published as web pages under > https://lojban.github.io/ . > > The LLG can ask the administrators of them for adding a disclaimer on > each webpage that the contents are out of control of the LLG, but such > a petition may be ignored by the administrators. Instead, it would be > a certain counter-measure to create an official website of the LLG and > to declare on the top page that the LLG is not responsible for the > contents on any other websites like *.lojban.org, la-lojban.github.io > or lojban.github.io. My last motion would solve the problem, though it > was ignored and not discussed by the LLG. > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/ > 2017-February/001357.html > > mi'e la guskant > > > 2018-01-08 6:23 GMT+00:00 Curtis Franks : > > I would like to hear from .guskant. about this. > > > > On Dec 29, 2017 03:06, "Curtis Franks" > wrote: > >> > >> I propose (not quite as a motion) that the LLG adopt an official policy > >> that the LLG or some body constituted by it for such purpose search for > and > >> monitor social media or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profiles, > groups, > >> communities, bots, etc. (hereafter called "entities") which in any way > >> whatsoever relate to, promote, or use Lojban or other LLG-adopted > logical > >> languages and which are not clearly human, personal, non-promoting, or > >> unofficial - and that such a body requests such entities to prominently > >> display a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial and not endorsed > by > >> the LLG. > >> > >> (I do not think that we can enforce such requests, just make them. But > >> having an official policy about addressing them may be good and gives us > >> some moral 'standing') > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Llg-members mailing list > > Llg-members@lojban.org > > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --94eb2c19ccc06ff6570562493d23 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ah, I was trying to resolve your compla= ints from the other direction. Your proposal of just a single disclaimer on= a definitivelyLLG-controlled resource/website is much more restrained. It = is possible that my attempted solution would work well with it (as long as = we avoid abuse/killing the community and recognize that it cannot get '= em all (but focusing on prominent problems could be good)). But I really ha= ve never been convinced that my proposal is a great one.



Make= that motion again. Since we are considering all of those things now, it wo= uld be good to have it in the mix.

On Jan 8, 2018 04:02, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
I did not second the mo= tion because it seems excessive for removing or
avoiding the current and the future disorder about what is the
official information.

Anyone can create accounts on social media that may deceive people
into believing that it were owned by the LLG. The number of such
accounts should be finite but can be very large, and then it will be
too much work for a small group to investigate the nastiness of each
account. The problem can be solved in another way: if the LLG has an
official website and declare on the top page that the LLG does not own
any accounts on any social media, people will become aware of the
deceit. The real problem is that the LLG has no official website that
should be under control of the LLG, and therefore it is impossible
that the LLG would declare something on a top page of a website.

Currently, the following information is out of control of the LLG, and
actually deceives people into believing that the information were
approved by the LLG:

- All files under https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ that i= s a symbolic
link of Gleki's personal directory:
http://vrici.lojban.org/~gleki/media= wiki-1.19.2/extensions/
- most of mediawiki or tiki pages under *.lojban.org that are managed
by volunteers with no rule
- All repositories of Gleki's la-lojban https://github.com/la-lojban= ,
some of which are published as web pages under
https://la-lojban.github.io/ .
- All repositories of the Lojban Coders' Group
= https://github.com/lojban that are managed by volunteers with no rule,<= br> some of which are published as web pages under
= https://lojban.github.io/ .

The LLG can ask the administrators of them for adding a disclaimer on
each webpage that the contents are out of control of the LLG, but such
a petition may be ignored by the administrators. Instead, it would be
a certain counter-measure to create an official website of the LLG and
to declare on the top page that the LLG is not responsible for the
contents on any other websites like *.lojban.org, la-lojban.github.io
or lojban.github.io. My last motion would solve the problem, though it was ignored and not discussed by the LLG.
http://mail.lojban.org/<= wbr>mailman/private/llg-members/2017-February/001357.html

mi'e la guskant


2018-01-08 6:23 GMT+00:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:
> I would like to hear from .guskant. about this.
>
> On Dec 29, 2017 03:06, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I propose (not quite as a motion) that the LLG adopt an official p= olicy
>> that the LLG or some body constituted by it for such purpose searc= h for and
>> monitor social media or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profiles,= groups,
>> communities, bots, etc. (hereafter called "entities") wh= ich in any way
>> whatsoever relate to, promote, or use Lojban or other LLG-adopted = logical
>> languages and which are not clearly human, personal, non-promoting= , or
>> unofficial - and that such a body requests such entities to promin= ently
>> display a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial and not endo= rsed by
>> the LLG.
>>
>> (I do not think that we can enforce such requests, just make them.= But
>> having an official policy about addressing them may be good and gi= ves us
>> some moral 'standing')
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Llg-members mailing list
> Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo= /llg-members
>

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members
--94eb2c19ccc06ff6570562493d23-- --===============0821046119612211928== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============0821046119612211928==--