On 09/08/2016 07:03 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> > There are many lists out there for stuff that Александр and Zenaan are > posting. It's not that cypherpunk is apolitical. Rather, it's that stuff > which simply bashes one side or the other, but has no particular > connection to crypto and its social/economic/political role/potential is > just plainly off-topic. I TRY to keep my political postings to, at least the Internet or computing's connection to politics, state, society It's not ez. Rr > On 09/08/2016 07:39 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: >> On 09/05/2016 12:15 PM, Александр wrote: >>> forwarding part of my private conversation to the whole list: >> >>> The new list is not the preferable solution, you know. It's the >>> only thing we see right now, but... We should realize, that this >>> splitting up will KILL the original list. It will kill the whole >>> concept and the core idea of the Cypher-Punk list/movement. >> >>> The Snowden revelations and all the shit going on in the world in >>> the last 10 years has brought us (people with brain & spirit) to a >>> clear and unambiguous understanding that *"THE CYPHERPUNK >>> LIST-CONCEPT MUST EVOLVE, -> THUS MUST BE CHANGED, BECOMING MUCH >>> BROADER". *And the focus, as John Young wrote, cannot be on >>> Apolitical (relatively) crypto-math-numbers only as it was >>> before... >> >>> Times have irreversibly changed -> thus the issues for discussion >>> must be much much *BROADER*. >> >> Well that's odd. I wonder what it's about? Splitting the list into >> what? Two with different themes? One Moderated and one Unmoderated? > > There are many lists out there for stuff that Александр and Zenaan are > posting. It's not that cypherpunk is apolitical. Rather, it's that stuff > which simply bashes one side or the other, but has no particular > connection to crypto and its social/economic/political role/potential is > just plainly off-topic. > >> If the latter, that's a perilous course. One sees a lot of "twin" >> lists and such that are one sterile and stereotyped, the other totally >> overrun with tards. Because once upon a time, half or more of the >> people on the original list who took an interest in keeping it alive >> /without/ censorship bailed, and those who stayed behind were >> gradually overwhelmed. > > There's no need to do anything with the cypherpunks list. If people > object to off-topic crap, they can say so. If people object to being > criticized for posting off-topic crap, they can deal with it or leave. > That's just how unmoderated lists work. > >> When the means to eliminate a public voice by direct force are not >> practicable, death by a thousand paper cuts may get the job done. >> Splitting an online forum may be a decisive move in that direction, or >> harmless and productive, depending the situation. As someone already >> pointed out, there is already a cryptography list, which seems to >> provide more or less what any advocates for moderation could ask for. >> >> People have been talking about the CPunks list charter. I have not >> seen it. What Sovereign signed it, and what powers does the Crown >> delegate to us, for what tribute in return? Just curious. >> >> Will post a message to this same thread that enlarges on "my" input to >> the "public" conversation. >> >> Ⓐ >> >> >>
