From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 23:25:33 -0800 (PST)
To: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
Subject: Re: Will off-topic libertarian bullshit be allowed on the moderated mailing list?
In-Reply-To: <199701060239.UAA03419@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.970106020714.18277B-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> For a long time, cypherpunks mailing list has been plagued by
> two types of irrelevant traffic: 
> 
> 	1) Flames by Vulis against cypherpunks and by cypherpunks against
> 	   Vulis.
> 	2) Off-topic rants about libertarian ideology, guns, poverty,
> 	   Ebonics, etc etc.
> 
> Both types of messages were equally damaging to the content that I
> consider worth reading: discussions about applications of cryptography,
> protocols and crypto-related code. As a result, most of the people who
> used to talk about cryptosystems do not do so anymore because they moved
> to other, less noisy, forums.

[...]

> Cypherpunks's uniqueness and appeal is not in the breadth of issues
> discussed: there are forums dedicated to libertarian issues, guns,
> languages, terrorism, and so on. The mission of this forum, as I
> understand it, was to provide amateurs with interest in applying
> cryptography, and professional cryptographers alike, a good place to
> discuss crypto-related issues productively.
> 
> It is understandable that many of those people who subscribe to
> cypherpunks' credo of digital freedom happen to be devoted libertarians
> and have strong views on other political subjects. It does not justify
> bringing every important issue to this mailing list, however.
> 
> If restrictions on content are to be imposed, it is not only fair
> but also rational to exclude off-topic political rants as well as 
> flames. Both of these categories add zero value to accomplishing
> Cypherpunks' mission.

Disagree strongly.

Were you to call for a total restriction on political topics, frankly,
your argument would be more convincing.  You do not. This suggests,
correct or not, that your dispute is with libertarian views specifically.
It also demonstrates the danger of allowing that kind of selective
moderation, specificially, that it gives rise to interest group politics
and issue based censorship.  Moderation here is being proposed in (I
believe) reaction to the "Tim May sucks (insert reproductive organ of
choice here)" posts and flames having not even a tangential attachment to
cryptography.  If you get into singling out other topics as somehow
universally inappropriate I think you get into very deep water.

Is finance unimportant to cypherpunks?  I think this is a tougher argument
to make, but only because financial services and banks are not seen as the
kind of political entitites that free market systems generally are.

Cypherpunks is an important and distinct list because of the intense cross
pollenization between e.g., cryptographers and finance types,
cryptographers and bankers, cryptographers and lawyers, cryptographers and
polititians.

In the same way that crypto types despertly want the rest of the world to
become crypto savvy, it is important for crypto types to become
political, economicly savvy, and generally understand the larger context
of crypto applications.

There also exists a forum for pure cryptography discussion already.  (2
actually, the cryptography and the coderpunks lists).

> 	- Igor.
> 
> Appendix: what we all received when we subscribed:

[All but the last line deleted]

> Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy.

And how will this happen without having the bankers, lawyers, polititians,
brokers, and economists in the boat?

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland