Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

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.