On 04/26/2016 05:56 AM, John Young wrote: > Great repost. May is unique. And well armed and bunkered, physically, > philosophically, politically. >
Corralitos is a good place to 'bunker down' at. He still lives up there last I knew (2015) http://santacruzupdate.com/2015/05/06/how-do-you-maintain-a-balance-between-being-informed-and-staying-sane/ > At 01:27 AM 4/26/2016, you wrote: > >> From "Timothy C. May" <[email protected]> >> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:25:50 -0800 (PST) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: 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, [email protected] 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." > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
