From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b2c3c34167e3d2aedc8818dbe0604b652dbc3e9f0c3e25ce72d8a8b8b6c09a78
Message ID: <32F2C633.44E4@einstein.ssz.com>
Reply To: <32EF9A5B.5CF1@sk.sympatico.ca>
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-01 02:31:40 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:31:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:31:40 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes
In-Reply-To: <32EF9A5B.5CF1@sk.sympatico.ca>
Message-ID: <32F2C633.44E4@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Greg,
I read your missive (cpunks.html). It was interesting and thoughtful,
despite the lack of ASCII art.
I thought that I would reply to it by private email, in order to be
able to speak bluntly, without damaging some of the rather fragile
egos on the list. On the list I do my best to refrain from personal
insults toward others, but there sometimes comes a point where the
mere facts of a matter tend to be insulting to others, despite
attempts to tippy-toe around them.
Your HTML post does, in fact, deal with some very important points
in regard to the content of the list.
So much so, that it points out one of the major reasons that I see
the moderation/censorship process that has been implemented as a
deceitful and shoddy treatment of CypherPunk list members.
After years of reaping the rewards of his role of crypto-anarchist-
privacy-freedom/of/speech champion (which he has every right to),
John Gilmore decides to declare, "My machine--my list. I'm changing
it." (He might as well have added, "Anyone who doesn't like it can
go fuck themselves!")
John Gilmore effectively said, "I 'AM' the cypherpunks." Despite
the fact that he rarely posts to it and does not participate in
the discussions.
And exactly what was the purpose behind the changes?
Any two imbeciles with a case of beer could have sat down in a
single evening and hammered out a solution to the problems you
have addressed.
Instead, John chose to confiscate the subscribers by giving his
'new' list the cypherpunks name, instead of building a new list on
its own merits. And he set it up so that anyone who wants to
follow what is happening in the moderation/censorship process
gets 'twice as much' crapola as before.
The fact is, there is not one, single member who expressed a
desire to continue receiving the Tim May crapola or the UCE/Spam
crapola. But the process was set up so that those who choose not
to receive the edited/moderated/censored list get this shit
forwarded to them, by design of John and Sandy.
As far as 'censoring' goes, 'people' are being censored, not
'content'.
I, among others, am auto-botted to the flames and uncensored
lists. My 'offense' appears to be questioning the New List
Order.
If John, in his 'moderation' announcement, had stated
that he intended to automatically shit-can certain member's
postings, he would have lost even what shaky respect he still
maintains among people who are paying a modicum of attention to
what is actually transpiring on the list.
To tell the truth, my original concern with Sandy censoring
the list was that he does not have a particularly good command
of the English language, and he seems to have trouble grasping
the concepts involved in moderation/censorship.
I actually like Sandy, so I was hoping my forebodings would
turn out to be incorrect, but they have not. I think he is
in over his head and, as a result, his moderation is close to
being a joke.
This is not a 'casual' observation. I have read every single
message since the start of moderation, and documented the
censored/uncensored posts, as well as analyzing the headers,
etc. There are more than a few obtuse things going on behind
the scenes.
I believe that your view of 60% on-topic but uninteresting
is a figure fairly close to how more than a few list members
view the situation, but no one seems to realize that they are
each talking about a different 60%, which, taken together,
encompasses the majority of the postings.
Think of it this way--what if each member was allowed to
cut-out the 60% that they personally found uninteresting?
What do you think would be left?
You seem to be one of the few list members who realizes
what they gain by having a 'library' of posts that introduce
them to information and perspectives that broaden their
horizons.
I would hate to lose access to your posts because another
member cut them out as a part of the 60% that s/he found
'uninteresting'.
Return to February 1997
Return to “Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>”
Unknown thread root