Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes

[Jim Choate]

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'.