Re: Is there a moderator in your future?

[roger@coelacanth.com (Roger Williams)]

In article <9507102137.AA26662@spirit.aud.alcatel.com> droelke@spirit.aud.alcatel.com (Daniel R. Oelke) writes:

   > Why is Dyson of EFF enthusiastic about the concept?

   Because as moderators add value to the vast amount of stuff
   out there.  Why do some people pay to get a restricted subset
   of the cypherpunks?  Because they don't want the massive flow
   of wide open communications and they *trust* the person
   giving them the subset.  

   Moderators provide a great service, and it is finially being
   recognized as such in a monetary way.  I think that this 
   is a great thing!

I agree that moderated groups are useful at keeping the SNR high, and
are a great choice for those who can't or haven't time to set up their
own filters. However, they can't solve the problems that the Internet
is popularly supposed to have (e.g. no provisions for eliminating
parental responsibility).  Even supposing that US ISPs are *prohibited
by law* from carrying unmoderated Usenet groups, how does this address
all of the other services (current and future) that can be carried by
the Internet?  Sorry, the horse is out of the stable, and the only 99%
control option open to the government now is cutting the phone lines
at the border.

If an individual (e.g. a parent) wants to limit net access for certain
services to emasculated resources, perhaps Microsoft Restrict (TM) and
Prodigy can provide a desired service.  Otherwise, the solution to the
problem has to lie closer to home.

-- 
Roger Williams  --  Coelacanth Engineering  --  Middleborough, Mass

#!/usr/local/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-in-3-lines-PERL
($k,$n)=@ARGV;$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%
Sa2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*'
,$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length($n||die"$0 [-d] k n\n")&~1)/2)