My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to notice my absence! :-} This may speak volumes about why I have left the list, and what the list has become..... I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things, and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say "Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome. But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site, and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so why bother anyway?) Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the easy way out and list some bulleted points. * First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort." This is unexceptionable. * However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable. (The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy, or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.) * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.) * If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years, continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop? Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or, in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....). This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual relationships, criminal laws, etc. * How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes, Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September 1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at "csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and Moderated Non-Anarchic List.) * I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. * Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore? * In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places (including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be consigned to the flame list. * The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the list, as some good ideas may have been generated. I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." A delicious irony.) * In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will work to make the list a better one. * The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed. * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." (Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.) * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years (I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis (remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others. Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while, perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too. (I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. * As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the "anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list. More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological opponents censored by Sandy. * I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such lists, and more would not hurt. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably. * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.) * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me. "Some censors are more equal than others." * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they can't say. * It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure Desires. Foo on that. * Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.) * Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the censor is the easy way out. * By the way, the moderated list "RISKS" works pretty well. But it is not a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week, tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as this would kill the spirit of the debate. * Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the debates), this is all moot. In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. * To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point) - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. - there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any time to such lists. - the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more boring and sheltered list. And so there you have it. I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit, quickly. But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe it to you all to explain my views. Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But I find Sandy's series of dismissals--in other posts from other people, not just this one--to be "flamish." As Sandy says, your mileage may vary. As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same for his comments. At 9:55 PM -0800 2/2/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list,...
This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his
How can this be an "error of fact" when I am clearly setting out a point of view? Is it an error of fact that moderation was happening? Or is the disagreement with my quotes around "their"? This was clearly an expression of sarcasm. Hardly an "error of fact."
...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought.
Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and
John's message did not say he was thinking about instituting censorship, it said he was in the process of setting up such a system. As for the comments solicited, I noticed no changes whatsoever. (I guess the several dozen comments were "errors of fact," "piffle," and "straw men." Can anyone think of a single one of the various points made after John's announcement that changed the plan in any significant way?)
I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays.
And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri
That's an easy one, one I explained at least two or three times in the last half year: I used Eudora Pro to sort mail into various folders. I'm quite aware of what is going into various folders, and sometimes I even look in them. Clear enough?
has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the experiment began. YMMV.
Piffle. Nonsense. If you think the overall quality of posts is superior now to what it had been, your bias in favor of your own brain child is so powerful that it's warped your judgment. Who else thinks the quality is now higher? (By the way, I don't think the proper statistical method is to "average" all of the posts, including the Vulisgrams and the scatolological insults, as these were easily filtered by anyone with a clue. Rather, look at the substantive and stimulating essays, the important ones, and ask if they have gotten better. It's disingenuous to claim that filtering out the childish insults has improved the quality of the essays. As I said, I've seen the opposite. You apparently think differently.)
(Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas,...
Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call.
Here Sandy is really going over the line. He is saying he _almost_ filtered my message into the reject pile, where later he claims I would have no problem writing an essay and not knowing whether it would be filtered into the Good or the Bad pile. He later writes, in response to my point: "(Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....
Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such a lack of understanding."
So, given that I wrote my essay today, should I have known if it would be filtered into Sandy's "Not Fit for True Cypherpunks" list, or the Approved list? Sandy implies that he himself had to make a "judment call" on this one. Hey, people, this shows how fucked up things have gotten. Lord Almighty Sandy says my long-considered, well-written essay was _almost_ shitcanned ("It was a judgment call"). And for what reason? Apparently because of a single paragraph that mentioned "Toto" and Dale Thorn (oh, and Nurdane and Vulis and their love relationship) in unflattering terms. Is this the crap the Cypherpunks were founded to put up with? A petty satrap deciding to filter out a long and substantive essay because he feels some paragraph is insulting? What a state of affairs. This more than anything demonstrates the truth of Lord Acton's maxim about absolute power corrupting absolutely. Sandy feels free to flame away (piffle, straw man, logical fallacy), but expresses umbrage at my very accurate comments about ravings and rantings of certain list memmbers. (Perhaps Sandy will censor this message, feeling you readers are not able to handle my dismissal of his asinine views. This will leave the Censor having the final word, which is "not unexpected." When a censor gets into a debate with one of his charges, this is what often happens.)
* But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?...
I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house.
This is precisely the point I made! As for John instituting a censorhip policy, as I said, he is of course free to do it. It may be foolish to do so, but he is free to do so. And those of us who don't like what this all means are free to leave. Sounds fair to me.
While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh).
Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this?
I have no idea what John anticipated and didn't. But if he knew it wouldn't work, why bother? Not only did Vulis actually start posting _more_, it also consumed the list in a frenzy of posts about it. (By the way, remember that we are here talking about the unsubscription of Vulis by John. My reason for this reminder will be clear in a moment.)
Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others.
It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering half-measure.
We're talking about Vulis being unsubscribed, not the list censorship episode.
Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved.
That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some citations.
Again, we're talking about the Vulis unsubscription episode. Go back to the archives covering this period. Declan McCullough wrote an article about this, giving Vulis much publicity. And some of us were contacted by other journalists asking for our views, for what this meant about for the list's espoused philosophy about anarchy, etc. (I refused to comment, of course.)
Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways."
That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV.
Once again, the subject of the section you're citing was about the Vulis unsubscription matter. I think, Sandy, you need to read more carefully before you denounce arguments.
(I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap....
What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a
If you see no evidence that is has made things worse, then apparently you haven't seen that I have not been posting for the past month. Whatever my reasons, if you can seriously claim that you can see "no evidence" that a change of some sort has occurred...
hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of moderation is merely an artifact of inertia.
I still maintain, as others have as well, that a better approach would have been to announce the "Sandy-approved" list as a new option. Changing the main list to the censored version was a way to exploit the name of the list, etc. (Consider if Eric Blossom's filtered list was suddenly declared to be the "Cypherpunks" list. This is essentially what has happened. A major screw up. And I don't really think it germane to cite how many are on each list. Sheep are sheep, and, frankly, about 1850 of those putative "*2000*" on the main list are never, ever heard from.) ....
Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree.
But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, but even my sorting can be completely avoided.
Sophistry.
* OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor?
John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By the way, how is this to be "decided"? A democratic vote of the herd? Do all "*2000*" get a vote? Are we moving from benevolent dictatorship to direct democracy?
* Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket.
Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall.
You seriously think that establishing the idea that "even the Cypherpunks group accepts the need for censorship of unpopular views" is worth the minimal bandwidth savings of not having some of the scatological one-liners and insults? The huge amount of list animosity (so much for "comity") and bandwidth on this censorship issue dwarfs the bandwidth taken up by the Vulisgrams.
* (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....
Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such a lack of understanding.
As I noted earlier, you yourself said it was a "judgment call" for you to not put my message in the flames pile. So, did I truly not understand your criteria for approval (which means I wasn't feigning ignorance), or did I understand that which you yourself acknowledged having to make a judgment call (kissing cousin to a "guess" where I come from) on? If you are unsure whether to dump a major, substantive essay into the flames pile or allow it to be read by the main list, then this makes my point precisely. I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. (Saying what Sandy is doing is not "censorship" but is only "sorting" is pure sophistry.)
maybe he might think my essay was off-topic,
Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.
Another part of the problem is that the standards have not been clearly stated. "Flames" have not been defined in any meaningful way. Apparently it's OK for you to refer to my arguments as "disingenuous" and "piffle," but referring to someone's repeated ravings about how O.J. was framed is "flaming." Piffle.
* The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents,
Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies.
See what I mean? "Piffle." ("piffle, n. Foolish or futile talk or ideas") Hardly a substantive argument. I'd call it an insult. And I'll bet that if Phill Hallam-Baker dismisses an argument with a "foolish" one-line characterization, it will be viewed as a flame. (Well, not now, now that Sandy is apprised of this.)
and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized.
I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, a non-flamish way of making an argument. Dismissive jokes substituting for responding to my _opinion_.
(I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.)
I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic.
Again, look at what the Cypherpunks list has become! Because some of the barnyard insults were getting to some people, we now have a situation where a thoughtful commentator like Phill H-B (who I rarely agree with, by the way, but his essays show he's thinking about issues deeply) has his stuff sent to the scrap heap because he "flamed" Jim Bell? Or was it a critique of Bell's "assassination politics" ideas and the way he presents them, perhaps with a single flamish comment (a la the comment I made that caused Sandy to almost mark my entire essay as unfit for Cypherpunks)? I urge Phill, or others, to retrieve this offending article and repost it. Or use "*%&$" symbols where the banned flame language was contained, so it will pass muster with Sandy. Then we can better judge just what we're giving up in order to have the kind of "comity" which Sandy thinks he is creating. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames.
But they are not ad hominem attacks on Tim May. The are my opinions of some of his arguments. Even very smart people such as Tim say poorly thought out or even silly things.
But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But
Nor I, Tim's. Nothing personal, but that's the point. It is still possible to conduct ourselves with mutual respect even if our views and styles differ.
As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same for his comments.
After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim may be having. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 6:57 AM -0800 2/3/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim may be having.
Indeed, I have been seething for the past several weeks (off and on, as I am fortunately able to usually put it out of my mind and do other things with my mental energies....). I think I have figured out why I'm seething. It's about "power grabs." You see, in any anarchic situation, where reliance on self-control and self-filtering is emphasized, there is always a _temptation_ for some to "fill the power vacuum" and grab power. I learned in my years at Intel how easy it was to start bossing people around, and as I hired engineers and scientists, I built up quite a little empire. But I didn't like what it was doing to me, as it distanced me from the technology and also brought out "control freak" tendencies....I started worrying about how my people were using their time ("my" time), and I increasingly applied my own notions of what they should talk about and what were suitable topics for laboratory chatter. In other words, I became a censor. (Not a government censor, but a censor in the broader definition I've already cited.) So I gave it up. Even before eventually retiring from Intel, I elected to leave the management track and rejoin the "technical ladder," becoming one of Intel's so-called Principal Engineers. No longer could I control others, except through the example I set and the information I provided. And I was happy I had moved away from "the dark side of the force." (I accept the role hierarchies play in corporations. They can't be built with just people like me. They need leaders, controllers, power freaks, etc. But a virtual community like the Cypherpunks group is not such a heirarchical organization, and it needs few rules, leaders, etc. "We don't need no steenking leaders.") As this relates to Cypherpunks, I have steadfastly refused to consider any "management role," so to speak, in how the list is run, the formal policies, etc. I'm not saying there has been a call for management (though Detweiler used to rail against us for not having a management heirarchy, for not having rules and democratic procedures for "making decisions"), just that the power vacuum in anarchies such as ours is often an open invitation for someone to step in and "provide structure and guidance." I resisted any thoughts of doing this, and argued against this sort of thing whenever the topic came up in conversation. I chose to lead only by the posts I wrote and the ideas I worked on. There have been frequent calls over the years for the Cypherpunks to have a more permanent presence, perhaps even an office in Washington, D.C., such as the EFF had, the CPSR still has, and so on. And to have an Official Spokesman, a contact person for the media droids to contact. The calls for this have declined in the last couple of years, as people figured out that the Cypherpunks are not about having spokespunks for us, and that the media will just have to deal with the "anarchy" of having to herd cats to get information out of us. Now, of course, the message is being sent that Sandy Sandfort is in some sense the de facto leader, being that he determines what traffic goes out to the main list and what traffic gets bounced into the flames list. In fact, I'll make a prediction: The media will see that he is the chief censor and arbiter of worthiness and will increasingly contact him for the Official Point of View on various items they are interested in. It distresses me greatly that Sandy Sandfort has elected to move into this "power vacuum" to nominate himself as our Leader and Chief Censor. Foo on that. (I used to hear this at Intel, where the argument for a hierarchical structure was much stronger, to wit: "Tim, if you won't agree to manage others, you'll have to accept that people less technically competent than yourself are going to elect to become managers and they'll probably become _your_ manager in the not too distant future.") So, I sort of thank Sandy for helping me to realize certain things that I may not have explicitly realized before. Namely, I realize that I don't want the karmic burdens of power myself, preferring to lead only by the example I set and the ideas I generate. This is why "market anarchies" (books, music, ideas, all things where "no ruler" exists) appeal to me so much. And since I don't wish to assume the mantle of leadership, and don't see much need for leadership or global censorship (as opposed to locally contracted for filtering, a la Eric Blossom's list, or Siskel and Ebert giving recommendations, or ratings of restaurants, etc.), I am resentful and suspicious of people who _do_ step into the "power vacuum" to lead and control. Now I grant you that Sandy's form of leadership and control is relatively mild, but the very notion that Sandy can reject a long essay because of a couple of phrasings he dislikes (this was his "judgment call" point about why he (reluctantly?) allowed my post to go out) is a step in the wrong direction. And given our strong ideological bias toward market anarchies, this move toward censorship stands out like a sore thumb. At least the issue would be clearer if Sandy passed all posts through but deleted sections that offended him and marked deleted sections as "**CENSORED**." Yes, I'm seething. Sandy is right about that. I saw a group I helped create and spent thousands of hours on, writing articles and developing ideas choose--by fiat from the owner of the machine the list was being sent out from--to embrace the dark side, the control freak side. In the name of "comity," Sandy's term for the bonhomie he thinks he can cultivate, we lose our ideological purity. "Hey, even the Cypherpunks have embraced censorship." Instead of letting the power vacuum remain unfilled, and suggesting to people that they solve the problems it creates as best they can, Sandy jumped in to fill the vacuum. This is what I'm seething about. And even dropping the power grab at the end of the "experiment" will not stop this seething. Fuck it. --Tim May " Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Timothy C. May wrote:
With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn,
Dale, that's me!
* To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point)
Which is exactly the point I labored so long on while Tim May was sitting on the sidelines.
- whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group.
Ditto.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Where to begin? Tim May has taken the time to write broad and thought provoking essay on this list's current moderation experiment. I appreciate his analysis--and candor. While I do not agree with all he has written, I enormously respect his dedication to his point of view. On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list,...
This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his analysis. We are conducting an experiment. It will last one month. After that, it's over if list members want it to be over. If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current form of moderation--or some variation will continue.
...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought.
Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first.
I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays.
And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the experiment began. YMMV.
With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day.
I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous policies. More on this, below.
(Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas,...
Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation. Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation.
* But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?...
I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house.
While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh).
Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this?
Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others.
It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering half-measure.
Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved.
That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some citations.
Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways."
That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV.
(I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap....
What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO "CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES."
* "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1":
"censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."
Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, but even my sorting can be completely avoided.
* OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor?
John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the list moderated, I hope to keep my involvement as a moderator to a minimum. Any volunteers?
* Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket.
Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall.
* (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....
Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such a lack of understanding.
maybe he might think my essay was off-topic,
Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.
or used one of the Seven Deadly Words,
Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.
or was "too flamish."
Bingo (with the proviso that it be a personal attack on a list member as opposed to the substance of his or her argument).
* The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents,
Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies.
and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized.
I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the shop. No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows whether is gleeful about all this or not. An frankly, who cares? The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation. Tim was not. I am. By the end of the experiment, I dare say we will have a good idea what most list members think.
(I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.)
I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Look folks, when you stop trying new things, and stop questioning conventional wisdom, you are as good as dead. Maybe moderation is the best think since sliced bread; maybe it sucks. How about we give it a good-faith try for the next 2+ weeks and see how it goes? If the consensus is it sucks, I intend to be gracious in defeat. If it goes the other way, I hope that the neighsayers will accept it and let the list get on with its role as a forum for the protection of privacy. Thanks again, Tim, for sharing your views with us. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
participants (3)
-
Dale Thorn -
Sandy Sandfort -
Timothy C. May