1994-02-18 - The Difficulty of Source Level Blocking

Header Data

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a7fa8c9c4e86fbe9a925ea3a92365228036312896959fbd2fa6ed6569589dd14
Message ID: <9402180320.AA04665@ah.com>
Reply To: <9402180255.AA12330@anon.penet.fi>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-18 03:25:30 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 19:25:30 PST

Raw message

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 19:25:30 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The Difficulty of Source Level Blocking
In-Reply-To: <9402180255.AA12330@anon.penet.fi>
Message-ID: <9402180320.AA04665@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>>For the first
>>such group, whoever hosts the ratings site can decide who gets to
>>moderate.  A benign autocrat is ideal in this case.

>That may be true, but the benign autocrat of today will all too soon be
>replaced by a not-at-all-so-benign fascist, who then has the power to keep
>critical post of the net "for the common good".

You're missing a few qualifiers.  The benign autocrat mentioned above
is for _bootstrapping_ a workable _distribution_ of moderation.  Once
the dynamic of moderator selection is stable, this autocrat then loses
most all power to influence, since the initial distribution of
articles to moderators need not be in any particular place.

>Just say NO to Usenet moderation.

I'm not proposing that every newsgroup be moderated, even in
distributed form.  What I am proposing is a system for a distributedly
moderated newsgroup which can compete for attention with other
newsgroups and other fora.