My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"

A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on
the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to
notice my absence! :-}  This may speak volumes about why I have left the
list, and what the list has become.....

I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call
it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of
reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated
list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things,
and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New
Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait
accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list
_founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say
"Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no
longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome.

But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take
some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site,
and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the
list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people
are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly
predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about
moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the
New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which
is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just
some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer
substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose
substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day.
(Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list
to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!"
ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name
Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm
not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these
inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so
why bother anyway?)


Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the  easy way out and
list some bulleted points.

* First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with
his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the
Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he
wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the
point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question
the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to
set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or
used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or
freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that
shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is
required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant
must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort."
This is unexceptionable.

* However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of
disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free
to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are
encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable.

(The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing
the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy,
or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.)

* But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the
Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list
was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider
these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think
that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we
could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property
rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.)

* If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years,
continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop?
Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand
that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell
the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to
be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or,
in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....).
This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property
owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual
relationships, criminal laws, etc.

* How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get
started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel
got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes,
Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September
1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able
to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There
was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the
Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at
"csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what
happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and
Moderated Non-Anarchic List.)

* I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run
on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of
subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group.

* Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is
the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore?

* In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a
virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places
(including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are
even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several
instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in
any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of
the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of
virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is
appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be
consigned to the flame list.

* The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was
seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a
decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list.
I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but
I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three
founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor
to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least
have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the
list, as some good ideas may have been generated.

I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled.
Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made
with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right
to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First,
Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with
flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third,
journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into
the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it
sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found
it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways."

(I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy
virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and
generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined
the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes
around it." A delicious irony.)

* In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our
leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his
cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I
don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will
work to make the list a better one.

* The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their
basic belief that censors are needed.

* "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1"
of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only
meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that
"Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know
Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And
even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1":

"censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other
material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise
objectionable."

(Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that
censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.)

* OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his
choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years
(I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's
a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so
often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis
(remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I
stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others.
Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while,
perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too.

(I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just
not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list).

* Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line
scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through,
based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some
reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket.

* As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who
rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the
"anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list.
More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological
opponents censored by Sandy.

* I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new
list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff.
After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such
lists, and more would not hurt.

But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things
considerably.

* (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by
Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic,
or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I
realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my
essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like
Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be
dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.)

* Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from
the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or
whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues
raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring
Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric
Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me.  "Some censors are more
equal than others."

* The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful
ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that
his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are
consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the
traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade
through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances
at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they
can't say.

* It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad
speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no
problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David
Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand
filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the
main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we
all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them
from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure
Desires. Foo on that.

* Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of
terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that
Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How
many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would
venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a
libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to
get a leftist rant past him.)

* Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services
of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the
censor is the easy way out.

* By the way, the moderated list "RISKS"  works pretty well. But it is not
a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to
computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various
contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week,
tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly
and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that
Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as
this would kill the spirit of the debate.

* Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several
approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there
would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not
really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating
in the debates), this is all moot.

In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my
time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is
degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to
other things.


* To summarize:

- the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the
list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core
contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli."

- while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does
not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a
semantically debatable point)

- whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a
particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot
be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group.

- there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other
machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any
time to such lists.

- the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing
a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more
boring and sheltered list.


And so there you have it.

I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and
your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have
posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit,
quickly.

But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a
particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe
it to you all to explain my views.

Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years.


--Tim May




Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle,"
"disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not
flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But
then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But
I find Sandy's series of dismissals--in other posts from other people, not
just this one--to be "flamish." As Sandy says, your mileage may vary.

As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same
for his comments.

At 9:55 PM -0800 2/2/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call
>> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of
>> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated
>> list,...
>
>This is Tim's first error of fact.  I point it out not to insult
>him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his

How can this be an "error of fact" when I am clearly setting out a point of
view? Is it an error of fact that moderation was happening? Or is the
disagreement with my quotes around "their"? This was clearly an expression
of sarcasm. Hardly an "error of fact."

>> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New
>> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait
>> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list
>> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought.
>
>Factual error #2.  There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to
>do so.  In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and

John's message did not say he was thinking about instituting censorship, it
said he was in the process of setting up such a system. As for the comments
solicited, I noticed no changes whatsoever.

(I guess the several dozen comments were "errors of fact," "piffle," and
"straw men." Can anyone think of a single one of the various points made
after John's announcement that changed the plan in any significant way?)

>> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about
>> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the
>> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which
>> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just
>> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer
>> substantive essays.
>
>And I see something different.  Since previously, Tim actively
>filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his
>comparison.  As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri

That's an easy one, one I explained at least two or three times in the last
half year: I used Eudora Pro to sort mail into various folders. I'm quite
aware of what is going into various folders, and sometimes I even look in
them. Clear enough?


>has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks
>of this experiment then in the previous several months.  In my
>opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few
>self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has
>been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the
>experiment began.  YMMV.

Piffle. Nonsense. If you think the overall quality of posts is superior now
to what it had been, your bias in favor of your own brain child is so
powerful that it's warped your judgment.

Who else thinks the quality is now higher?

(By the way, I don't think the proper statistical method is to "average"
all of the posts, including the Vulisgrams and the scatolological insults,
as these were easily filtered by anyone with a clue. Rather, look at the
substantive and stimulating essays, the important ones, and ask if they
have gotten better. It's disingenuous to claim that filtering out the
childish insults has improved the quality of the essays. As I said, I've
seen the opposite. You apparently think differently.)

>> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list
>> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!"
>> ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name
>> Nurdane Oksas,...
>
>Two points:  Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to
>moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post,
>I did not send it to the "flames" list.  It was a judgment call.

Here Sandy is really going over the line. He is saying he _almost_ filtered
my message into the reject pile, where later he claims I would have no
problem writing an essay and not knowing whether it would be filtered into
the Good or the Bad pile. He later writes, in response to my point:

"(Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
>> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by
>> Sandy for whatever reasons....
>
>Tim, I think this is disingenuous.  I have been quite clear on
>my moderation criteria.  You are too intelligent to feign such
>a lack of understanding."

So, given that I wrote my essay today, should I have known if it would be
filtered into Sandy's "Not Fit for True Cypherpunks" list, or the Approved
list? Sandy implies that he himself had to make a "judment call" on this
one.

Hey, people, this shows how fucked up things have gotten. Lord Almighty
Sandy says my long-considered, well-written essay was _almost_ shitcanned
("It was a judgment call"). And for what reason? Apparently because of a
single paragraph that mentioned "Toto" and Dale Thorn (oh, and Nurdane and
Vulis and their love relationship) in unflattering terms.

Is this the crap the Cypherpunks were founded to put up with? A petty
satrap deciding to filter out a long and substantive essay because he feels
some paragraph is insulting? What a state of affairs.

This more than anything demonstrates the truth of Lord Acton's maxim about
absolute power corrupting absolutely. Sandy feels free to flame away
(piffle, straw man, logical fallacy), but expresses umbrage at my very
accurate comments about ravings and rantings of certain list memmbers.

(Perhaps Sandy will censor this message, feeling you readers are not able
to handle my dismissal of his asinine views. This will leave the Censor
having the final word, which is "not unexpected." When a censor gets into a
debate with one of his charges, this is what often happens.)

>> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the
>> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list
>> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider
>> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?...
>
>I think this is a Straw Man.  John and I have never argued that
>John "owns" cypherpunks.  When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in
>someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much
>to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the
>house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks").  As Tim
>is fond of saying, "my house; my rules."  I don't think this
>means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house.

This is precisely the point I made!

As for John instituting a censorhip policy, as I said, he is of course free
to do it. It may be foolish to do so, but he is free to do so. And those of
us who don't like what this all means are free to leave. Sounds fair to me.

>> While John had (and has) every legal right
>> to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First,
>> Vulis found other ways to post (duh).
>
>Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this?

I have no idea what John anticipated and didn't. But if he knew it wouldn't
work, why bother? Not only did Vulis actually start posting _more_, it also
consumed the list in a frenzy of posts about it.

(By the way, remember that we are here talking about the unsubscription of
Vulis by John. My reason for this reminder will be clear in a moment.)

>> Second, the list was consumed with
>> flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others.
>
>It was consumed with flames before.  Now, at least, the vast
>majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump
>through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering
>half-measure.

We're talking about Vulis being unsubscribed, not the list censorship episode.

>> Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of
>> the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the
>> publicity he craved.
>
>That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles
>on this issue.  I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some
>citations.

Again, we're talking about the Vulis unsubscription episode. Go back to the
archives covering this period. Declan McCullough wrote an article about
this, giving Vulis much publicity. And some of us were contacted by other
journalists asking for our views, for what this meant about for the list's
espoused philosophy about anarchy, etc. (I refused to comment, of course.)


>> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the
>> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic
>> ways."
>
>That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose.
>I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked
>me in private e-mail for improving the list.  Again, YMMV.

Once again, the subject of the section you're citing was about the Vulis
unsubscription matter. I think, Sandy, you need to read more carefully
before you denounce arguments.

>> (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy
>> virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and
>> generated more crap....
>
>What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back
>loop to engender comity.  This might not work either, but I see
>no evidence that it has made things worse.  Remember, there are a

If you see no evidence that is has made things worse, then apparently you
haven't seen that I have not been posting for the past month. Whatever my
reasons, if you can seriously claim that you can see "no evidence" that a
change of some sort has occurred...

>hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the
>Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list.  Sure some
>of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the
>extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of
>moderation is merely an artifact of inertia.

I still maintain, as others have as well, that a better approach would have
been to announce the "Sandy-approved" list as a new option. Changing the
main list to the censored version was a way to exploit the name of the
list, etc.

(Consider if Eric Blossom's filtered list was suddenly declared to be the
"Cypherpunks" list. This is essentially what has happened. A major screw
up. And I don't really think it germane to cite how many are on each list.
Sheep are sheep, and, frankly, about 1850 of those putative "*2000*" on the
main list are never, ever heard from.)

....
>Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in
>this situation.  Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence,
>that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply.  I'm not
>sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree.
>
>But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument.
>Am I, thereby, a censor?  Well I am examining "other material"
>and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is
>"objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither
>"removing" nor "supressing" anything.  Anybody can read anything
>that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places.  I am sorting,
>but even my sorting can be completely avoided.

Sophistry.


>> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his
>> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor?
>
>John didn't choose me, I approached him.  I offered my opinion as
>to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions.  The
>short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a
>better job, go for it."  I accepted the challenge, so here I am.
>I don't want this job.  If the list members decide to keep the
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By the way, how is this to be "decided"? A democratic vote of the herd? Do
all "*2000*" get a vote? Are we moving from benevolent dictatorship to
direct democracy?


>> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line
>> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through,
>> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some
>> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket.
>
>Very possibly true.  Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't
>and option.  However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better
>than no solution at all.  Yes, I've made what I consider to be
>errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall.

You seriously think that establishing the idea that "even the Cypherpunks
group accepts the need for censorship of unpopular views" is worth the
minimal bandwidth savings of not having some of the scatological one-liners
and insults? The huge amount of list animosity (so much for "comity") and
bandwidth on this censorship issue dwarfs the bandwidth taken up by the
Vulisgrams.

>> * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
>> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by
>> Sandy for whatever reasons....
>
>Tim, I think this is disingenuous.  I have been quite clear on
>my moderation criteria.  You are too intelligent to feign such
>a lack of understanding.

As I noted earlier, you yourself said it was a "judgment call" for you to
not put my message in the flames pile. So, did I truly not understand your
criteria for approval (which means I wasn't feigning ignorance), or did I
understand that which you yourself acknowledged having to make a judgment
call (kissing cousin to a "guess" where I come from) on?

If you are unsure whether to dump a major, substantive essay into the
flames pile or allow it to be read by the main list, then this makes my
point precisely. I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my
posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's
sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not.

(Saying what Sandy is doing is not "censorship" but is only "sorting" is
pure sophistry.)


>> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic,
>
>Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.

Another part of the problem is that the standards have not been clearly
stated. "Flames" have not been defined in any meaningful way. Apparently
it's OK for you to refer to my arguments as "disingenuous" and "piffle,"
but referring to someone's repeated ravings about how O.J. was framed is
"flaming."

Piffle.

>> * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful
>> ammunition to give to our opponents,
>
>Piffle.  Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far
>more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies.

See what I mean? "Piffle."

("piffle, n. Foolish or futile talk or ideas")

Hardly a substantive argument. I'd call it an insult. And I'll bet that if
Phill Hallam-Baker dismisses an argument with a "foolish" one-line
characterization, it will be viewed as a flame. (Well, not now, now that
Sandy is apprised of this.)



>> and Vulis is certainly gleeful that
>> his fondest wishes have been realized.
>
>I do not have a crystal ball.  My Vulcan mind meld is in the
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah, a non-flamish way of making an argument. Dismissive jokes substituting
for responding to my _opinion_.


>> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a
>> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to
>> get a leftist rant past him.)
>
>I sorry Tim gives me so little credit.  Rather than merely post a
>self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's
>supposition.  To the best of my recollection, I have sent only
>one post of Phill's to the Flames list.  It flamed Jim Bell.  As
>far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic.

Again, look at what the Cypherpunks list has become! Because some of the
barnyard insults were getting to some people, we now have a situation where
a thoughtful commentator like Phill H-B (who I rarely agree with, by the
way, but his essays show he's thinking about issues deeply) has his stuff
sent to the scrap heap because he "flamed" Jim Bell? Or was it a critique
of Bell's "assassination politics" ideas and the way he presents them,
perhaps with a single flamish comment (a la the comment I made that caused
Sandy to almost mark my entire essay as unfit for Cypherpunks)?

I urge Phill, or others, to retrieve this offending article and repost it.
Or use "*%&$" symbols where the banned flame language was contained, so it
will pass muster with Sandy. Then we can better judge just what we're
giving up in order to have the kind of "comity" which Sandy thinks he is
creating.


--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle,"
> "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not
> flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames.

But they are not ad hominem attacks on Tim May.  The are my
opinions of some of his arguments.  Even very smart people such
as Tim say poorly thought out or even silly things.  

> But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But

Nor I, Tim's.  Nothing personal, but that's the point.  It is
still possible to conduct ourselves with mutual respect even if 
our views and styles differ.

> As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same
> for his comments.

After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be
served by doing another point by point response.  From Tim's
tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came
about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where
they were.  I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim
may be having.
 

 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 6:57 AM -0800 2/3/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be
>served by doing another point by point response.  From Tim's
>tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came
>about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where
>they were.  I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim
>may be having.

Indeed, I have been seething for the past several weeks (off and on, as I
am fortunately able to usually put it out of my mind and do other things
with my mental energies....).

I think I have figured out why I'm seething.

It's about "power grabs."

You see, in any anarchic situation, where reliance on self-control and
self-filtering is emphasized, there is always a _temptation_ for some to
"fill the power vacuum" and grab power.

I learned in my years at Intel how easy it was to start bossing people
around, and as I hired engineers and scientists, I built up quite a little
empire. But I didn't like what it was doing to me, as it distanced me from
the technology and also brought out "control freak" tendencies....I started
worrying about how my people were using their time ("my" time), and I
increasingly applied my own notions of what they should talk about and what
were suitable topics for laboratory chatter. In other words, I became a
censor. (Not a government censor, but a censor in the broader definition
I've already cited.)

So I gave it up. Even before eventually retiring from Intel, I elected to
leave the management track and rejoin the "technical ladder," becoming one
of Intel's so-called Principal Engineers. No longer could I control others,
except through the example I set and the information I provided. And I was
happy I had moved away from "the dark side of the force."

(I accept the role hierarchies play in corporations. They can't be built
with just people like me. They need leaders, controllers, power freaks,
etc. But a virtual community like the Cypherpunks group is not such a
heirarchical organization, and it needs few rules, leaders, etc. "We don't
need no steenking leaders.")

As this relates to Cypherpunks, I have steadfastly refused to consider any
"management role," so to speak, in how the list is run, the formal
policies, etc. I'm not saying there has been a call for management (though
Detweiler used to rail against us for not having a management heirarchy,
for not having rules and democratic procedures for "making decisions"),
just that the power vacuum in anarchies such as ours is often an open
invitation for someone to step in and "provide structure and guidance." I
resisted any thoughts of doing this, and argued against this sort of thing
whenever the topic came up in conversation. I chose to lead only by the
posts I wrote and the ideas I worked on.

There have been frequent calls over the years for the Cypherpunks to have a
more permanent presence, perhaps even an office in Washington, D.C., such
as the EFF had, the CPSR still has, and so on. And to have an Official
Spokesman, a contact person for the media droids to contact. The calls for
this have declined in the last couple of years, as people figured out that
the Cypherpunks are not about having spokespunks for us, and that the media
will just have to deal with the "anarchy" of having to herd cats to get
information out of us.

Now, of course, the message is being sent that Sandy Sandfort is in some
sense the de facto leader, being that he determines what traffic goes out
to the main list and what traffic gets bounced into the flames list. In
fact, I'll make a prediction: The media will see that he is the chief
censor and arbiter of worthiness and will increasingly contact him for the
Official Point of View on various items they are interested in.

It distresses me greatly that Sandy Sandfort has elected to move into this
"power vacuum" to nominate himself as our Leader and Chief Censor. Foo on
that.

(I used to hear this at Intel, where the argument for a hierarchical
structure was much stronger, to wit: "Tim, if you won't agree to manage
others, you'll have to accept that people less technically competent than
yourself are going to  elect to become managers and they'll probably become
_your_ manager in the not too distant future.")

So, I sort of thank Sandy for helping me to realize certain things that I
may not have explicitly realized before.

Namely, I realize that I don't want the karmic burdens of power myself,
preferring to lead only by the example I set and the ideas I generate. This
is why "market anarchies" (books, music, ideas, all things where "no ruler"
exists) appeal to me so much. And since I don't wish to assume the mantle
of leadership, and don't see much need for leadership or global censorship
(as opposed to locally contracted for filtering, a la Eric Blossom's list,
or Siskel and Ebert giving recommendations, or ratings of restaurants,
etc.), I am resentful and suspicious of people who _do_ step into the
"power vacuum" to lead and control.

Now I grant you that Sandy's form of leadership and control is relatively
mild, but the very notion that Sandy can reject a long essay because of a
couple of phrasings he dislikes (this was his "judgment call" point about
why he (reluctantly?) allowed my post to go out) is a step in the wrong
direction.

And given our strong ideological bias toward market anarchies, this move
toward censorship stands out like a sore thumb.

At least the issue would be clearer if Sandy passed all posts through but
deleted sections that offended him and marked deleted sections as
"**CENSORED**."

Yes, I'm seething. Sandy is right about that. I saw a group I helped create
and spent thousands of hours on, writing articles and developing ideas
choose--by fiat from the owner of the machine the list was being sent out
from--to embrace the dark side, the control freak side. In the name of
"comity," Sandy's term for the bonhomie he thinks he can cultivate, we lose
our ideological purity.

"Hey, even the Cypherpunks have embraced censorship."

Instead of letting the power vacuum remain unfilled, and suggesting to
people that they solve the problems it creates as best they can, Sandy
jumped in to fill the vacuum.

This is what I'm seething about. And even dropping the power grab at the
end of the "experiment" will not stop this seething.

Fuck it.

--Tim May


"



Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May wrote:
> With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose
> substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day.
> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list
> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!"
> ravings of Dale Thorn,

Dale, that's me!

> * To summarize:
> - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the
> list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core
> contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli."
> - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does
> not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a
> semantically debatable point)

Which is exactly the point I labored so long on while Tim May was
sitting on the sidelines.

> - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a
> particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot
> be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group.

Ditto.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Where to begin?  Tim May has taken the time to write broad and
thought provoking essay on this list's current moderation 
experiment.  I appreciate his analysis--and candor.  While I do
not agree with all he has written, I enormously respect his
dedication to his point of view.  

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:

> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call
> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of
> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated
> list,...

This is Tim's first error of fact.  I point it out not to insult
him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his
analysis.  We are conducting an experiment.  It will last one 
month.  After that, it's over if list members want it to be over.
If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as
beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current
form of moderation--or some variation will continue.

> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New
> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait
> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list
> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought.

Factual error #2.  There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to
do so.  In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and 
Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't.
Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the
end of the world.  Sorry Tim.  I should have spoken to you first.

> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about
> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the
> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which
> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just
> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer
> substantive essays.

And I see something different.  Since previously, Tim actively
filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his
comparison.  As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri
has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks
of this experiment then in the previous several months.  In my 
opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few 
self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has
been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the
experiment began.  YMMV.

> With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive
> essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day.

I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective
of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous
policies.  More on this, below.

> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list
> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!"
> ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name
> Nurdane Oksas,...

Two points:  Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to
moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post,
I did not send it to the "flames" list.  It was a judgment call.
 
The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation.  
Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation.

> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the
> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list
> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider
> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?...

I think this is a Straw Man.  John and I have never argued that
John "owns" cypherpunks.  When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in
someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much
to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the
house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks").  As Tim
is fond of saying, "my house; my rules."  I don't think this 
means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house.

> While John had (and has) every legal right
> to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First,
> Vulis found other ways to post (duh).

Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this?

> Second, the list was consumed with
> flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others.

It was consumed with flames before.  Now, at least, the vast
majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump
through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering
half-measure.

> Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of
> the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the
> publicity he craved.

That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles
on this issue.  I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some
citations.  

> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the 
> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic
> ways."

That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose.
I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked 
me in private e-mail for improving the list.  Again, YMMV.
 
> (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy
> virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and
> generated more crap....

What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back 
loop to engender comity.  This might not work either, but I see
no evidence that it has made things worse.  Remember, there are a
hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the 
Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list.  Sure some
of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the
extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of 
moderation is merely an artifact of inertia.

But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO 
WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO 
"CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES."  

> * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1"
> of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only
> meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that
> "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know
> Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And
> even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1":
> 
> "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other
> material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise
> objectionable."

Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in
this situation.  Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence,
that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply.  I'm not
sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree.

But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument.
Am I, thereby, a censor?  Well I am examining "other material" 
and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is
"objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither
"removing" nor "supressing" anything.  Anybody can read anything
that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places.  I am sorting,
but even my sorting can be completely avoided.

> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his
> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor?

John didn't choose me, I approached him.  I offered my opinion as
to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions.  The
short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a 
better job, go for it."  I accepted the challenge, so here I am.
I don't want this job.  If the list members decide to keep the 
list moderated, I hope to keep my involvement as a moderator to a
minimum.  Any volunteers?

> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line
> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through,
> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some
> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket.

Very possibly true.  Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't
and option.  However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better 
than no solution at all.  Yes, I've made what I consider to be
errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall.
 
> * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by
> Sandy for whatever reasons....

Tim, I think this is disingenuous.  I have been quite clear on 
my moderation criteria.  You are too intelligent to feign such
a lack of understanding.

> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic,

Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.

> or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, 

Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.

>or was "too flamish."

Bingo (with the proviso that it be a personal attack on a list
member as opposed to the substance of his or her argument).

> * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful
> ammunition to give to our opponents,

Piffle.  Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far
more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies.

> and Vulis is certainly gleeful that
> his fondest wishes have been realized.

I do not have a crystal ball.  My Vulcan mind meld is in the 
shop.  No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows 
whether is gleeful about all this or not.  An frankly, who cares?
The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation.
Tim was not.  I am.  By the end of the experiment, I dare say we
will have a good idea what most list members think. 

> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a
> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to
> get a leftist rant past him.)

I sorry Tim gives me so little credit.  Rather than merely post a 
self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's
supposition.  To the best of my recollection, I have sent only
one post of Phill's to the Flames list.  It flamed Jim Bell.  As
far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic.

Look folks, when you stop trying new things, and stop questioning
conventional wisdom, you are as good as dead.  Maybe moderation
is the best think since sliced bread; maybe it sucks.  How about
we give it a good-faith try for the next 2+ weeks and see how it 
goes?  If the consensus is it sucks, I intend to be gracious in
defeat.  If it goes the other way, I hope that the neighsayers 
will accept it and let the list get on with its role as a forum
for the protection of privacy.

Thanks again, Tim, for sharing your views with us.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~