1993-11-10 - Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?

Header Data

From: Dark <unicorn@access.digex.net>
To: tcmay@netcom.com
Message Hash: 07b705fff1c87ea5c6fec8c5fecb89ad66ca2a986cce01bbfd3f7b446cb67fb3
Message ID: <199311100437.AA05249@access.digex.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-10 04:38:47 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 9 Nov 93 20:38:47 PST

Raw message

From: Dark <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 93 20:38:47 PST
To: tcmay@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
Message-ID: <199311100437.AA05249@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This brings up the question,

In the event _the net_ were centralized, and not a disperate
entity, how might selective distrubution be affected?

->
I would reccommend that if certain sites become a
problem by attracting flamers, communists, liberals, or government
authoritarian types, that we could remove them on a case-by-case basis.
<-

In the event this became a problem, how might a theoretically
"private" or "psuedo-private" (constructively private?)
newsletter/mailing list be restricted.

Even today, what recourse do we have to keep the circulation
of the list minimal, and (egads) filter the readers such
to keep bandwidth low and flame / agitator disruption to a min.?

Doesn't this smack of censorship, and if so where's the line
between censorship and exclusivity, and is cypherpunks
even really exclusive?  It was nice before the summer when
the list was a little less well known and it had that
"private feel" that I think T. May was talking about.

Is there a basic conflict between impact power of the list
as a political sway force and that personal feel?





Thread