Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]

Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> writes:
> I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day
> Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks@toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the
> cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go
> to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void.

What about the leaks?  (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc)
Where do they go?

You expect Perry to stick his neck out and approve them?  (Perry
Metzger is the moderator of cryptography@c2.net, started recently as a
moderated version of cypherpunks for those who don't know what the
`cryptography' list is).  The existance of cryptography argues against
the need for `cypherpunks' to be moderated.  Why two competing
moderated lists?

Secondly the status of garbage is in the eye of the beholder.  There
are a few posts which are probably considered garbage by near
everyone, but lots of other stuff which really just depends on what
the reader is interested in.

The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the
absolutism of free speech.  Free speech in electronic media, with
cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to
truly free speech yet.

A lot of people seem to regard Jim Bell's assasination politics as
suitable material for censoring.  Yet it is pretty crypto relevant.

Sandy's job is pretty hard to do.  For instance I recently posted
this, which ended up in cpunks-flames, due to being in a thread which
contained a mild flame 2 messages back:

: Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating
: the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1:
: 
: 	p = 2q+1
: 
: where q is a prime also.
: 
: And method 2:
: 
: 	p = r.2q+1
: 
: where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number.
: 
: With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or
: size of q, as they are related).
: 
: With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size
: of p in bits.  
: 
: Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is
: quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate
: trial prime q as you have to do in method 1.  However is the security
: weaker in method 2?  What size of p and q do you have to use to get
: the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1?  What
: should be the relationship between the size of p and q?

(I freely admit to injecting additional crypto relevance just for the
fun of seeing it be filtered cpunks-flames -- though I was interested
in discussion also).

> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated
> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*.

I'd prefer to see various filtering services offered, and the list
retained.

My main objection with the moderation experiment is that the main list
was renamed.

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`

Adam writes:

>The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the
>absolutism of free speech.  Free speech in electronic media, with
>cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to
>truly free speech yet.

I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The
Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies
regarding what information they print; these policies increase the
publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you
criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in
their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms?

What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a
common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the
commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken
boor can shout everyone else down.

-Declan



-------------------------
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Adam writes:
> >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the
> >absolutism of free speech.  Free speech in electronic media, with
> >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to
> >truly free speech yet.

> I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The
> Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies
> regarding what information they print; these policies increase the
> publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you
> criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in
> their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms?

JAMA is an example of moderated (good) speech?  Not from where I sit.
Look at the "interview" they published in the spring of 1992 with the
Kennedy autopsy doctors.  Then read about how they twisted the whole
thing (and really didn't interview the doctors) a la 60 minutes.

> What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a
> common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the
> commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken
> boor can shout everyone else down.

The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
fact drunk, watch out!

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
> > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a
> > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the
> > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken
> > boor can shout everyone else down.
>
> The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
> an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
> fact drunk, watch out!

If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm
too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though.

Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-)

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
> > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
> > fact drunk, watch out!

> If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm
> too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though.

> Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-)

I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial
parties last night.  It made the craps table action seem a bit
merrier, and the girls were friendlier too.

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
> 
> > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
> > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
> > > fact drunk, watch out!
> 
> > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm
> > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though.
> 
> > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-)
> 
> I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial
> parties last night.  It made the craps table action seem a bit
> merrier, and the girls were friendlier too.
> 

I like an occasional Coors Lite.  BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about
one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
> > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
> > > > fact drunk, watch out!

> > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm
> > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though.

> > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-)

> > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial
> > parties last night.  It made the craps table action seem a bit
> > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too.

> I like an occasional Coors Lite.  BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about
> one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV.

Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at
the hotel had two choices:  Bud regular and Coors light.  I took the
Coors.

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
>
> > > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
> > > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
> > > > > fact drunk, watch out!
>
> > > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm
> > > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though.
>
> > > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-)
>
> > > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial
> > > parties last night.  It made the craps table action seem a bit
> > > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too.
>
> > I like an occasional Coors Lite.  BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about
> > one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV.
>
> Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at
> the hotel had two choices:  Bud regular and Coors light.  I took the
> Coors.

I remember when one had trouble getting Coors in NY: had something to do
with their giving $$ to the Nicaragua contras and upsetting the
politically correct distributors.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
> Adam writes:
> 
> >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the
> >absolutism of free speech.  Free speech in electronic media, with
> >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to
> >truly free speech yet.
> 
> I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The
> Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies
> regarding what information they print; these policies increase the
> publication's value.

Their policies impose the editors and owners biases on the
publication.  If people value their publication they buy it.  The
average quality of the articles is higher than a discussion group --
the authors spend longer writing the articles, and the best articles
are selected by the editors.  Unsuprising.  The articles are probably
biased towards the editors or owners politics.

> Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you criticize the
> National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in their
> newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms?

A newsletter is not a discussion forum.  Editorial control of a
newsletter is not moderation of a discussion group.  The cypherpunks
list is a discussion forum.  It's the electronic equivalent of people
talking amongst themselves about crypto issues in free time at CFP, or
a crypto conference.

> What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is
> polluted a common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's
> the tragedy of the commons. When all can speak without limit in a
> public forum, the drunken boor can shout everyone else down.

Dimitri's opinions aren't threatening anything.  If you aren't
interested in what he says don't read his articles.  If you disagree
with what he says, argue against it.  Subscribe to or start filtering
services (rating services) reflecting your views.

Personally I think something useful could be done with a content
digested form of cypherpunks with ratings, and pointers to the actual
posts.

Things like:

+ a thread on the experiment moderation, discussion from John Gilmore,
  Tim May, and others (hypertext ref)

+ series of latest ascii art and insults

+ new crypto developments in article forwarded by JYA

+-+ discussion of new crypto developments, and Lucky offers a bet

Would take a fair amount of effort from someone to produce a running
commentry of cypherpunks discussions to provide a higher level index
in to cypherpunks.

The price of unconditional free speech is that people will say things
which you personally don't agree with, however libertarian you are.

The only thing to do is to ignore stuff you don't like, or argue
against it, if you say, no this is too crap, or too worthless, then
you've started on the slippery slope.  It is the same principle that
protects your own freedom of expression.

It is worth bearing in mind that cypherpunks themselves are part of a
minority (the population of people who understand what encryption is
and implies, and know what governments are proposing enough to form an
opinion on whether crypto should be regulated or not).

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`