cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-01-05 - Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks “moderation” experiment in Jan

Header Data

From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
To: sandfort@crl.com
Message Hash: d13ecacd488fc051c93b8a552837ac94216088411a77d40d58aaacb4fe6e86f0
Message ID: <19970105224324.3104.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply To: <199701051939.LAA05342@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-05 22:43:35 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:43:35 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:43:35 -0800 (PST)
To: sandfort@crl.com
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
In-Reply-To: <199701051939.LAA05342@toad.com>
Message-ID: <19970105224324.3104.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> writes:

> I agree with Sandy Sandfort and many others that things have gotten
> way out of hand on the list.  He and I feel that the only proposed
> solutions likely to succeed involve inserting human judgement in the
> cypherpunks posting process, rather than mere automation.  So I am
> supporting this experiment, primarily by setting up a few more mailing
> lists on Toad and by automatically moving the current set of
> subscribers to the moderated list.  You will be able to move
> yourselves back to the unedited list if you don't want to participate
> in the experiment, or if, partway through, you decide you don't like
> the results.

Have you considered using a system like NoCeM (see http://www.cm.org)?
I think such a system has many advantages over centrally controlled
moderation.  The basic idea of NoCeM is that instead of moderating a
newsgroup or mailing list, people post lists of articles to be
ignored, and you can configure your mail/newsreader to pay attention
to NoCeM's by whichever people you trust.

NoCeM would prevent any message delays which moderation might
introduce (sure, I might see the last few hours worth of spam, but at
least when I come back after a week away I don't have to wade through
a week's worth of "Timmy May hurt my feelings, blah blah blah").  This
means the more frequently you read the mailing list, the more spam you
will see--quite an acceptable trade-off given that people who check
the list often are probably those who would want to avoid message
delays.

NoCeM would also prevent anyone from accusing you of censorship.  Even
if such accusations are weeded from the list (via moderation), it's
still a drag to lend credibility to such asinine accusations by
actually blocking those people's posts.

NoCeM would ensure that no one is held legally responsible for the
contents of someone else's messages.  If we continue to get important
messages like implementations of the RC2 and RC4 ciphers, a moderator
could be found responsible for approving such an article.

Obviously there are some issues related to NoCeM.  Not all mail- and
newsreaders support NoCeM.  However, there are definitely solutions to
those problems.  For instance, a perl script could be used to delay
messages and apply NoCeM's, so that people can subscribe to customized
filtered versions of the list.  I might even be willing to write such
software if there is interest.

Thread