1997-02-03 - Re: My Departure, Moderation, and “Ownership of the List”

Header Data

From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
To: sandfort@crl.com
Message Hash: 48f31110c707947cbea91bc1cf1b937f2ad1da50819b53a0dc9867317ffeedfb
Message ID: <199702032259.OAA05072@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-03 22:59:04 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:59:04 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:59:04 -0800 (PST)
To: sandfort@crl.com
Subject: Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
Message-ID: <199702032259.OAA05072@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list
readership are that:

1. It was done to the main list!  If cypherpunks were left unchanged,
and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it
would be just another filtered list.  However there are already
several filtered lists, so the usefulness of this is limited anyway.
Merely including details of these filtered lists in the sign on
message, and posting a reminder every few weeks would suffice.  I and
apparently, most others didn't choose to subscribe to a filtering
service.  I object to this choice being over-ridden.  OK, so I can
re-subscribe to cypherpunks (cypherpunks-unedited), but many won't
bother.  (Actually I subscribe to cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks,
as the most efficient way of receiving all messages, and still being
able to see the moderation results).

2. The impetus for moderating the main list seems to be as a result of
a few posts by Dimitri.  Really, if this is all it takes to destroy an
unmoderated list, I've got to laugh at cypherpunks collectively.  Why
is it such a big deal to press the `n' key, if you don't like what
Dimitri, or anyone else, has to say?  If your time is too valuable to
press `n' keys, what is wrong with subscribing to the existing
filtered lists?  Or with setting up a kill-file?  Or maybe generating
a bit of signal yourself?

3. It is even more funny that in my opinion Dimitri purposefully set
out to raise the issue of censorship (after his own partial
censorship), and has succeeded to this extent.  The whole thing is
just allowing yourself to be manipulated by his transparent efforts.

4. There is already a moderated forum for discussion of cypherpunks
issues: cryptography@c2.net, why do we need another one?

My vote is for renaming:

	`cypherpunks-unedited' -> `cypherpunks'
and	`cypherpunks' -> `cypherpunks-edited'

and for moving all those still on the edited list to the unedited
list.  Post a note advertising the availability of a new filtering
service called `cypherpunks-edited@toad.com', along with the
references to the other competing filtering services.

If at the end of the trial forced moderation period, John Gilmore
doesn't have the bandwidth on toad.com to support all of
`cypherpunks', `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-flames', I
suggest that a new home is found for `cypherpunks'.  Or perhaps Sandy
as proponent of his filtering service, would be able to find a home
for `sandys-filtered-cypherpunks' service, as with the other filtering

Personally, I am not in the habit of flaming people, or using the word
`fuck', in general discussion, but I find the way this `filtering
service' was foisted on the main list highly objectionable.

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>