Anarchy Eroded: Project Efnext

[Eric Cordian]

Jim Choate writes:

> So much for belief in free markets. You realise that there is nothing
> that requires servers to install this, or cease using the old network?

A typical citizen-unit will quickly trade a large amount of privacy for a
small amount of convenience.

Sheeple-shearing is never so successful as when it's "voluntary."

Note that the two things IRC really needs, end to end encryption and
authentication, are not even on the list of "improvements" these people
are working on.

A little over a month ago, Adam J Herscher wrote a lovely little rant on
Efnext, and rather than reiterate points which he made more articulately
than I could ever hope to, let me simply paste chunks from his message to
EFNet opers and admins.

"The way that this is being implemented is simply unfair. They're
supporting themselves with the argument that since every EFNet admin will
be approached, it is fair - yet they easily admit that there will be a
network split and that there is no other way to do it. Well, at this
point, let's take a look from the admin being approached perspective. I am
an EFNet admin, and approached by a group of people that tell me they have
a great solution to fix the network. They tell me that I'm welcome, and my
opinions will be heard (though I have no -official- voice/vote - yet), as
long as I change my server to meet requirements not officially approved by
anyone. That is, I will need to run new code, open my I:lines, possibly
add more opers, possibly resign as admin and allow a new one to take over
(again no server names mentioned, but I have specific ones in mind - and
no, not my own - a list of servers that were discussed as not being
allowed to link without conforming was actually posted). So what are my
options at this point? Well, I can link to their network, or I can decide
not to. If I decide not to, I will remain with a group of unwanted leaf
servers with no hubs. And yes, I mean unwanted by them - if you haven't
been approached by them yet others were months ago, why do you think this
was?  Perhaps because you wouldn't go along 100% or keep quiet?
Essentially this process is "conform or be delinked" - because it's
obvious at this point that if the major EFNet hubs and client servers go,
you will be left delinked - their idea of a network split."

> It seems to me the 'cypherpunkish', 'libertarian', 'anarchic' thing to
> do is to promote the growth of individualy operated servers other than
> those on ISP's (who will have a motive to drop the old system and use
> the new system - just another example of why libertarian/economism is
> not sufficient in and of itself for a basis for society - they have no 
> motive to protect the individual, only the 'market').

It would indeed be unfortunate if all controversial IRC traffic ended up
being carried by isolated IRC servers, akin to remailers, whose admins
were under constant attack, and which came and went on a daily basis.

I anticipate that if Efnext pulls off this "Conform or be
Delinked" exercise, people will be setting their sights on Usenet as the 
next thing that needs "fixing."

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"