Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)

Firebeard wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes:
> 
> IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in.  if
> IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other
> IC> mailing list host.
> 
> 	And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will
> not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP.  The
> implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will
> be blocked.  Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and
> I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind,
> of the list.  Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by
> social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by
> policies of the list operators.

Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea.

I would probably disconnect from any server that 

a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS
attack) and
b) Alters content of any messages.


	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com allegedly said:
> 
> Firebeard wrote:
> > 
> > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes:
> > 
> > IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in.  if
> > IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other
> > IC> mailing list host.
> > 
> > 	And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will
> > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP.  The
> > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will
> > be blocked.  Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and
> > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind,
> > of the list.  Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by
> > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by
> > policies of the list operators.
> 
> Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea.
> 
> I would probably disconnect from any server that 
> 
> a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS
> attack) and
> b) Alters content of any messages.
> 

I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple 
of months, but it seems short-sighted.  If this scheme grows there 
could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no 
technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included.

Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of 
users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose.  Clearly, 
some people would chose to populate a filtered list.  There is no 
reason whatsoever to discriminate against them.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

Kent Crispin wrote:
> ichudov@algebra.com allegedly said:
> > Firebeard wrote:
> > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes:
> > >     And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will
> > > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP.  The
> > > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will
> > > be blocked.  Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and
> > > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind,
> > > of the list.  Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by
> > > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by
> > > policies of the list operators.

> I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple
> of months, but it seems short-sighted.  If this scheme grows there
> could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no
> technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included.
> Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of
> users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose.  Clearly,
> some people would chose to populate a filtered list.  There is no
> reason whatsoever to discriminate against them.

There could be, but that would be on a case-by-case basis.  There
are times when carrying a censored feed that you'd be giving tacit
approval to the censorship itself.  Again, case-by-case basis.