I sent the following email to the AAUP mailing list at UW:
From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Jan 18 10:18:38 2021 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:18:38 -0800 (PST) From: Stuart Reges <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: follow up I'm disappointed that the responses to my Friday message indicate very little willingness to discuss issues of concern to conservatives. I know that we don't want to use the AAUP list to argue these points, but I wanted to point out that if we truly are interested in healing the country it will require listening to people on the other side, even when we strongly disagree with them. In the case of tech censorship I wanted to point out that the Parler debate has been grossly mischaracterized. Parler's terms of service forbid posts that encite violence. They didn't immediately remove every such post, but neither does Facebook or YouTube. As Glenn Greenwald has reported, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler. The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube." His excellent article can be found here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic The CEO of Parler was interviewed last night by Mark Levin and that is available here (starting at 9:00): https://video.foxnews.com/v/6223678829001#sp=show-clips --Stuart Reges, Teaching Professor, Computer Science & Engineering https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~reges/
I posted a message to the AAUP mailing list on January 15th that they allowed to go through titled "encouraging viewpoint diversity." That message generated 24 responses that they published. I tried to publish this follow-up message on the 18th, but they said, "I'm not going to forward this to the whole list, 'We try to stop back and forth exchanges. One or two comments per person in a particular exchange is about right.'" I would have thought that on such an important topic that generated so much discussion that I might be allowed to post a second message. I wasn't engaging in "back and forth" argumentation. I was calling for a willingness to hear all sides of an issue.