[Trumpi]

> You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone.

No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides. I'm not sure how the paper supplier fits in to this argument. Perhaps it is a good analogy for the original topic.

[simplotek]

> No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides.

You stated no point.

You're trying to ignore the fact that businesse relationships require all parts to participate voluntarily.

If one part tries to abuse the terms of those services then service providers are free to not continue with the business arrangement.

Not continuing a business arrangement is not censorship.

Are we supposed to feign ignorance and claim terms of service don't exist anymore?

[sinity]

> Are we supposed to feign ignorance and claim terms of service don't exist anymore?

Terms of service usually are vague bullshit which boils down to "we can drop you whenever we feel like it". And if it's an oligopoly? Well, too bad I guess. It's hilarious leftists support oligopolies now.

[Trumpi]

Again, I'm merely saying that spam control is not censorship. Your argument about participating in business relationships might have merit, but it is a different argument.

[Fatnino]

Lots of spam filtering happens long before the user has any control.

You ever try to set up your own email server and then have it be able to send to Gmail addresses? Very very difficult.