From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:41:22 -0800 (PST)
To: pdh@best.com
Subject: Re: Dissolving Choke Points
Message-ID: <199702040141.RAA09208@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Peter Hendrickson <pdh@best.com> writes:
> There are lessons to be learned here.  One is that censorship does
> not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue.  The cypherpunks list
> right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11.

Censorship adds a social hierarchy, and this is inevitably resented.

A similar problem existed with ICS (Internet Chess Servers), they
include a MUD like facility where users can discuss chess.  For misc
reasons certain behaviour was frowned on, and a system of control was
added to the software where certain users where given moderator
status, and could kick others off.

The fact that some of the moderators were particularly poor players
helped to annoy others who though outspoken, where good chess players,
and led to the particularly long thread in alt.chess (or whatever
group it was) titled `guppies rule the goldfish bowl' or something.
(A `fish' is a newbie chess player, a guppie being a small fish,...)

Interesting repetition of the social phenomena of resentment of power
in electronic forums (however well intentioned, and for whatever
perceived social good).

> Another lesson is the danger of choke points.  We can see how
> tempting it is for people to exercise their control.  Even John Gilmore
> was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering
> experiments.  Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy?

Quite.  For a pedigree of championing free speech, and unpaid efforts
to further freedom, he was high up on the list.  I'd feel happier if
he was joining in with these discussions, rather than getting
interested to the extent to set up moderation, even though not
participating in the discussions.

> [distributed list homing ideas]

sounds good.  But what about USENET groups?  They're distributed, what
feature of your proposed solution is superior to using USENET groups
distribution mechanisms in your opinion?

Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was
suggested.  Some people were against it because they felt that it
would attract more noisy posters.

Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks.  (As
an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the
alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech).

> P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from
> both of them.  While basically well-intentioned, they just made a
> mistake in this instance.

Agree.  Also, the quicker they acknowledge their actions as mistakes,
and correct the results, the less their reputations will suffer.

Perhaps at the end of the trial moderation experiment would be a good
time to change position without loosing face.  (If acknowledging
mistakes bothers them).

Adam
--
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`