(I wrote a pretty long message and decided that the last few paragraphs said what I was really getting at. So I put the long message on the web at <http://www.io.com/~gbroiles/cpunks.html> and have sent along only the last bit.) This discussion of public perception now finally reaches what finally spurred me to write in the first place, which is the relationship of all of this to the name of the list, and whether the unfiltered list should be called "cypherpunks" or "cypherpunks-unedited" or whatever. I think that the dispute over the name (or, more accurately, grumbling and dissent about John Gilmore's decision about naming) is reducible to a dispute over whether it's more important that the list be perceived as a "free expression zone" where any message is accepted, or if it is perceived as a mailing list with a high signal/noise ratio. At a purely technical level, these are both non-issues; the name "cypherpunks@toad.com" is merely a string of text, and we could all just as easily subscribe to "mxfgfds@toad.com"; and motivated subscribers can use automated tools to tweak the signal/noise ratio to their individual liking. But most people will follow a path of least resistance; they will (remain) subscribe[d] to "cypherpunks@toad.com", and they will not use filters, and what they get is what the world at large will think "cypherpunks" is. While I don't care (and suspect many others don't care) what the perception of "cypherpunks" is, per se, I do care about whether or not interesting people choose to send their thoughts and information to the list. So to the extent that public perception changes that, I'm interested. And we've been doing the "free expression zone" for several years, and what we're ending up with is a mixture that's mostly crap - of the messages I see (and I filter a lot out), a small fraction (10%?) is pure garbage (e.g., the "cocksucker" messages), a large fraction (60%?) is on-topic but uninteresting or not useful, and the rest is useful in that it's got information or a perspective I hadn't been exposed to before I read the message. Other lists which are moderated (either by message or by author) attract people whose messages are frequently useful; many of those people have been on the Cypherpunks list at one time or another and have found it unsuitable. So I'm ready to experiment with a new configuration because I'd like to get more useful information. One approach to the name question would be to eliminate "cypherpunks@toad.com" and force old/new subscribers to choose between "cypherpunks-edited" and "cypherpunks-unedited". The advantage I see is that it provides more accurate feedback about what people want; the present method provides information about the perceived value of unmoderation weighed against the bother of dealing with subscribing & unsubscribing. The disadvantage is that it's likely to eliminate many subscribers, and that it tends to abandon the "cypherpunks@toad.com" history which is, by now, ~5 years old. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |