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`