Request to mailing list cryptography rejected

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 07:06:05PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:06 PM,  <cryptography-owner at metzdowd.com> wrote:
> > Posting of your message titled "Re: [Cryptography] Blockchain
> > currencies: The Death of 1000 Cuts"
> >
> > Posting of your message titled "Cryptonomics, Digital Trust, Case
> > of Short Behaviour in the Trading Pit"
> >
> > has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
> > following reason for rejecting your request:
> >
> > "We're basically holding off on currency discussions."
> 
> It is hypocritical to allow and approve threads and posts that
> start, continue, and subthread such discussions per charter,
> then censor others that do the same thing, especially so
> when exacted upon those simply countering other posters
> thoughts and data that were so approved. See archives
> below.
> 
> "Cryptography" is a... mailing list devoted to cryptographic
> technology and its *political impact*. Occasionally... more
> generally... *security and privacy technology* and its *impact*
> "On topic" discussion includes technical aspects of cryptosystems,
> *social repercussions of cryptosystems*, and the *politics* of
> cryptography such as export controls or *laws*
> 
> If you want to censor and pare the list down to some purer
> narrower form of "cryptography tech" talk only, which would surely
> be a fine resource, feel free, there's a long way to go there...
> starting with the charter and all the other posters equally.
> 
> Lots of off topic material here...
> http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/
> 
> Note there also no *cryptography* or "security" or "privacy"
> of TLS over, or PKI signatures present on, the archive files either.

Come on grarpamp - you knew the deal when metzdowner was created -
it's a pro censorship list.

Even Jordan Peterson (who used to say "hate speech" is "obviously"
bad) is finally now saying "even the hate speech laws are problematic
at their foundation, since who is going to define "hate"? Well I'll
tell you who - those people whom you would LEAST want to be in charge
of doing that!"  (It took him a bloody while, but at least he got to
this basic fundamental, and also puts it into words which many folk
seem to be able to understand.)


And so, re metzbergdowder censorship - the folks who you allow to
censor (because they sold you on their "we'll do the right thing"
message) are, as it turns out (surprise fucking surprise), the exact
folks you do NOT want to be defining which conversations are allowed
to happen.


There is only one solution - gas the Jews right? I kid, I kid, what I
really mean is throw them in an oven.  Oh, alright - of course you're
here on cypherpunks, and so you evidently know that censorship is not
the best idea around, since almost invariably it DEVOLVES into one or
another form of tyranny - which you have evidently just experienced.

I.e.: bring your conversations back to an uncensored forum.


Because, as Anglin always says, when it comes to certain problems,
you can all but guarantee (((who))) is behind it:

  Anglin: “Every. Singly. Time.”


Enjoy your britssdowd already :)