Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes

(I wrote a pretty long message and decided that the last few paragraphs
said what I was really getting at. So I put the long message on the web at
<http://www.io.com/~gbroiles/cpunks.html> and have sent along only the last
bit.) 

This discussion of public perception now finally reaches what finally
spurred me to write in the first place, which is the relationship of all of
this to the name of the list, and whether the unfiltered list should be
called "cypherpunks" or "cypherpunks-unedited" or whatever. I think that
the dispute over the name (or, more accurately, grumbling and dissent about
John Gilmore's decision about naming) is reducible to a dispute over
whether it's more important that the list be perceived as a "free
expression zone" where any message is accepted, or if it is perceived as a
mailing list with a high signal/noise ratio. At a purely technical level,
these are both non-issues; the name "cypherpunks@toad.com" is merely a
string of text, and we could all just as easily subscribe to
"mxfgfds@toad.com"; and motivated subscribers can use automated tools to
tweak the signal/noise ratio to their individual liking. But most people
will follow a path of least resistance; they will (remain) subscribe[d] to
"cypherpunks@toad.com", and they will not use filters, and what they get is
what the world at large will think "cypherpunks" is.

While I don't care (and suspect many others don't care) what the perception
of "cypherpunks" is, per se, I do care about whether or not interesting
people choose to send their thoughts and information to the list. So to the
extent that public perception changes that, I'm interested. And we've been
doing the "free expression zone" for several years, and what we're ending
up with is a mixture that's mostly crap - of the messages I see (and I
filter a lot out), a small fraction (10%?)  is pure garbage (e.g., the
"cocksucker" messages), a large fraction (60%?) is on-topic but
uninteresting or not useful, and the rest is useful in that it's got
information or a perspective I hadn't been exposed to before I read the
message. Other lists which are moderated (either by message or by author)
attract people whose messages are frequently useful; many of those people
have been on the Cypherpunks list at one time or another and have found it
unsuitable. So I'm ready to experiment with a new configuration because I'd
like to get more useful information.  

One approach to the name question would be to eliminate
"cypherpunks@toad.com" and force old/new subscribers to choose between
"cypherpunks-edited" and "cypherpunks-unedited". The advantage I see is
that it provides more accurate feedback about what people want; the present
method provides information about the perceived value of unmoderation
weighed against the bother of dealing with subscribing & unsubscribing. The
disadvantage is that it's likely to eliminate many subscribers, and that it
tends to abandon the "cypherpunks@toad.com" history which is, by now, ~5
years old. 

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |

Just one thing about the names of the different lists:
I received a mail listing the changes to come.
It was very easy to understand that I am going to get the moderated list
if I do not change my subscription.I'll find out if I will miss something.
We'll see.
I wonder who is so brainless, not to understand what's going on.
Do you really think the subscribers are pure Idiots?

Heinz-Juergen Keller
email: hjk@ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de

hjk wrote:
> Just one thing about the names of the different lists: I received a
> mail listing the changes to come. It was very easy to understand that
> I am going to get the moderated list if I do not change my subscription.
> I'll find out if I will miss something. We'll see.
> I wonder who is so brainless, not to understand what's going on.
> Do you really think the subscribers are pure Idiots?

Well, Heinz.  You live in a country full of people, ordinary people,
variously called the hoi polloi, the sheeple, the unwashed masses,
and other interesting names.

Many credible and respected authors and commentators have made references
to the masses in one form or another as "stupid, lazy, ignorant,
selfish, etc.", or even "almost useless".

Now whatever you think of your fellow citizens, or even those of the
USA (to name an example), I'm sure is OK on whatever basis you apply
your judgement.  But I guarantee you that the people on the cypherpunks
list are no more or less intelligent than the people who vegetate in
front of their TV sets every day, right there where you live, in all
probability. If you believe that your fellow citizens vote intelligently,
then I respond that cypherpunks vote intelligently.  What do you think?

[Cc: alex@agate.net]

Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> Many credible and respected authors and commentators have made references
> to the masses in one form or another as "stupid, lazy, ignorant,
> selfish, etc.", or even "almost useless".
> 

In the classical example, you should say "LYING, FUCKING, THIEVING, STUPID,"
and so on. The art of insults has developed somewhat.

Alexplore is one of the best masters after Dr. Vulis (some would say 
even better than Dr. Vulis, but that depends on taste).

if you do not get it, it is because you need to know the context...

	- Igor.

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> hjk wrote:
....
> > I wonder who is so brainless, not to understand what's going on.
> > Do you really think the subscribers are pure Idiots?
> 
> Well, Heinz.  You live in a country full of people, ordinary people,
> variously called the hoi polloi, the sheeple, the unwashed masses,
> and other interesting names.
> 
... 
> Now whatever you think of your fellow citizens, or even those of the
> USA (to name an example), I'm sure is OK on whatever basis you apply
> your judgement.  But I guarantee you that the people on the cypherpunks
> list are no more or less intelligent than the people who vegetate in
> front of their TV sets every day, right there where you live, in all
> probability. If you believe that your fellow citizens vote intelligently,
> then I respond that cypherpunks vote intelligently.  What do you think?
> 

Well, I thought cypherpunks claim to be elite.

Heinz-Juergen Keller
hjk@ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de

hjk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > hjk wrote:

> > Now whatever you think of your fellow citizens, or even those of the
> > USA (to name an example), I'm sure is OK on whatever basis you apply
> > your judgement.  But I guarantee you that the people on the cypherpunks
> > list are no more or less intelligent than the people who vegetate in
> > front of their TV sets every day, right there where you live, in all
> > probability. If you believe that your fellow citizens vote intelligently,
> > then I respond that cypherpunks vote intelligently.  What do you think?

> Well, I thought cypherpunks claim to be elite.

Most of the erstwhile elite types do the ordinary things in a quite
ordinary way.  Get dressed, eat, collect and send e-mail, and so on.

The un-ordinary things (for example) are the thought processes which
take place while typing out a post.  Those thought processes don't
generally intersect directly with the mundane things such as operating
the computer, unless the operations themselves are unusual and demand
the full attention of the person involved.

Dale Thorn wrote:
> hjk wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > hjk wrote:
> 
> > > Now whatever you think of your fellow citizens, or even those of the
> > > USA (to name an example), I'm sure is OK on whatever basis you apply
> > > your judgement.  But I guarantee you that the people on the cypherpunks
> > > list are no more or less intelligent than the people who vegetate in
> > > front of their TV sets every day, right there where you live, in all
> > > probability. If you believe that your fellow citizens vote intelligently,
> > > then I respond that cypherpunks vote intelligently.  What do you think?
> 
> > Well, I thought cypherpunks claim to be elite.
> 
> Most of the erstwhile elite types do the ordinary things in a quite
> ordinary way.  Get dressed, eat, collect and send e-mail, and so on.
> 
> The un-ordinary things (for example) are the thought processes which
> take place while typing out a post.  Those thought processes don't
> generally intersect directly with the mundane things such as operating
> the computer, unless the operations themselves are unusual and demand
> the full attention of the person involved.
> 

So what?

	- Igor.

Dale,

  This message is to inform you that I have taken over the cypherpunks 
list and will henceforth act as moderator, thus ensuring that only
messages regarding "How To Make Big $$$ Licking Your Own Balls" 
will be posted to the list.
  However, out of the goodness of my heart, I will beneficently allow
you to receive the expunged posts on another list.

  Just send an email to:
 "ifyoudon'tlikeit,thenlumpit--it'sMYlist@toad.com"
with a message body saying,
 "I'm still a Punk, and I don't think the music's too loud,
you old fart."

Toto
"My name isn't Richard, but I'm still a Dick."

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > hjk wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Most of the erstwhile elite types do the ordinary things in a quite
> > ordinary way.  Get dressed, eat, collect and send e-mail, and so on.
> > The un-ordinary things (for example) are the thought processes which
> > take place while typing out a post.  Those thought processes don't
> > generally intersect directly with the mundane things such as operating
> > the computer, unless the operations themselves are unusual and demand
> > the full attention of the person involved.

> So what?

The so what is that hjk believed that since cypherpunks were "elite",
it followed that they would notice certain administrative messages more
than non-elite people, and also remember those messages better.

I had no contention with the remember-better part, assuming that was
stated somewhere, but my argument is that greater intelligence does
not necessarily lead to paying better attention to mundane everyday
things like administrative messages and notices. The specific example
was whether most cypherpunks subscribers would take more than momentary
notice of the new list arrangements, and whether they would consciously
think about whether they should change their status (subscription), and
if so, why.  My contention is that most would not give it any serious
amount of attention.  This is no different IMO than whether erstwhile
"intelligent" people pay greater attention to road signs while driving
than people of average mental power do.

Greg Broiles wrote:
> One approach to the name question would be to eliminate
> "cypherpunks@toad.com" and force old/new subscribers to choose between
> "cypherpunks-edited" and "cypherpunks-unedited". The advantage I see is
> that it provides more accurate feedback about what people want; the present
> method provides information about the perceived value of unmoderation
> weighed against the bother of dealing with subscribing & unsubscribing. The
> disadvantage is that it's likely to eliminate many subscribers, and that it
> tends to abandon the "cypherpunks@toad.com" history which is, by now, ~5
> years old.

A good thought, Greg.  One problem, though.  My suspicion is that
Gilmore/Sandfort really wanted to have all the current subscribers
to the old unedited list to automatically be part of the new edited
list.  I don't think your possible approach would be acceptable to
anyone I know, forcing people to re-subscribe (and implying that those
who don't do anything would be unsubscribed, which would freak the
list owners out for sure).