In message <9303270339.AA00329@soda.berkeley.edu> you write:

...

wait, are you advocating news admins allowed to filter anonymous mail from downstream/upstream feeds? I don't get this.

Yes. If someone doesn't want to pass traffic, let them. It's extremely foolish; they'll get a bad rep for it. If they're a commercial site, they'll lose customers. If they're not, they'll lose face. Freedom to filter is freedom to shoot yourself in the foot.

All this is presuming that future and present net.users remain as abreast of net activity as the frontiersmen (hi John) that were adamant enough about uncensored communication to create the alt backbone. Thankfully, the frontiersmen haven't ridden off into the sunset, never to be seen again...and the number of net users with their mindset has even grown. But, the growth of the net also means that there will be a continuing influx of people who think a lot more about Monday night football than they think about censorship.

[...] doing politics in the broad sense is the only solution for this.

If, by this, you mean that the *REAL* battle is one of marketing, I think that you're right. People with censored feeds WON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE MISSING (because they don't get to see it)! And, if the votes for the right to anonymous expression are going to be cast via economic choices, then it's important to remember that it's not a one person one vote situation. Stig