From: stig@transam.ece.cmu.edu (Jonathan Stigelman)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 12:51:19 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Many Important Items in the News
Message-ID: <227@x15_remote.stigmobile.usa>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <9303270339.AA00329@soda.berkeley.edu> you write:

>>wait, are you advocating news admins allowed to filter anonymous mail
>>from downstream/upstream feeds?  I don't get this.
>
>Yes.  If someone doesn't want to pass traffic, let them.  It's
>extremely foolish; they'll get a bad rep for it.  If they're a
>commercial site, they'll lose customers.  If they're not, they'll lose
>face.  Freedom to filter is freedom to shoot yourself in the foot.
>

All this is presuming that future and present net.users remain as
abreast of net activity as the frontiersmen (hi John) that were
adamant enough about uncensored communication to create the alt
backbone.

Thankfully, the frontiersmen haven't ridden off into the sunset,
never to be seen again...and the number of net users with their
mindset has even grown.  But, the growth of the net also means
that there will be a continuing influx of people who think a lot
more about Monday night football than they think about censorship.

>[...] doing politics in the broad sense is the only solution for this.

If, by this, you mean that the *REAL* battle is one of marketing, I
think that you're right.  People with censored feeds WON'T KNOW WHAT
THEY'RE MISSING (because they don't get to see it)! 

And, if the votes for the right to anonymous expression are going to
be cast via economic choices, then it's important to remember that
it's not a one person one vote situation.

	Stig