No Subject

Declan,

Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well-
regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh.

Could you, with Professor Volokh, expand on the application of 
"editorial control" on "unmoderated" lists? (See Netly below)

As well as amplify "the power to kick folks off a list ... if 
conversation veers too far from the list's charter." (See 
your quote below) 

Isn't this power the black heart of free speech racketeering? 
And what makes the glands of secret authoritarians thrill with 
benevolent suppression of assent on behalf of the disorderly, 
fuzzy-minded citizenry?

Media moguls and list runners share commonalities, to be sure,
but I wonder if it's not cruel to compare John Gilmore to Professsor
Volokh, and both to, say, Rupert Murdoch.


--------

[Netly News]

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing
lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control.
Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that
exercise the highest degree of editorial control.

[Your post of 11-13]

In my experience, and I've talked about this at some length with Prof. 
Volokh who runs a number of lists himself, the best and most valuable
discussion lists are those that are unmoderated but have a list owner who
has the power to kick folks off a list and can try to steer the direction
of a conversation if it veers too far from the list's charter.

>
>Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well-
>regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh.
>

Declan should rest his point here. the cpunk listis notorious
for being way astray. yet cpunks continuously argue against
anyone with a moderator type role. could there be some correlation
between lack of moderation/leadership on the list and the 
piles of noise that people incessantly complain about? of 
course I'm insane for suggesting this.

I've repeatedly advocated
the usefulness of a good moderator. cpunks believe that such
a role is anti-anarchic (which it is), and therefore bogus.
the root of this is deeper, it relates to the psychology of
EH, TCM, JG who all have very love-hate relationships
with leadership.

this list suffers neglect by its creators 
unlike any other mailing list I know of in cyberspace, and
they are proud of that neglect, instead they call it "anarchy"
and claim it is a major blessing.

I think many people need to learn a lesson that cyberspace
doesn't change certain basic realities, such as how important
a dynamic leader is in forward motion in any area. but they
will have plenty of opportunities to learn over the next
few years and decades. and I'll be snickering in the sidelines
as long as they wonder aloud why their realities are as
they are and they find the deficiencies therein inscrutable.

Vlad Nuri <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:
> >Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well-
> >regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh.
> >
> 
> Declan should rest his point here. the cpunk listis notorious
> for being way astray. yet cpunks continuously argue against
> anyone with a moderator type role. could there be some correlation
> between lack of moderation/leadership on the list and the 
> piles of noise that people incessantly complain about? of 
> course I'm insane for suggesting this.

Lack of a moderator doesn't preclude you from reading one of the
filtered lists.  If anyone doesn't want to take the time to filter
their own reading, they can subscribe to one of the filtered lists.
This gives you more choice than a centrally censored/moderated list;
you choose which filtered list to subscribe to, or to subscribe to the
unfiltered list, or to do your own filtering via kill files, junking
threads etc.

Adam
--
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`