Re: Blacklist Re: Blacklist[ By the way, do you have a 'real name' and affiliation; the lack of
same makes it hard to read or respond meaningfully to anything you
say. - DPD ]
> I am not new to the Internet and will tell you your observations are very
> accurate and correct. Many who claim to be the "olbies" are seeking to
> use the issue of "spamming" and the like as an excuse to restrain
> competition from "newbies".
I'm not new to the Internet, and I think this is completely false. Not to
mention the fact that arguably the worst ongoing net.abusers are NOT
"newbies" but people who have been around enough to know how technically
to abuse, hack and otherwise diddle with the network.
>And yes; This, along with other excuses, will
> be used to institute political censorship as well.
Or maybe just those other excuses.
> ... Low cost, braod
> based, consumer access to the Internet will create the opportunity for an
> abundance of entreprenuers
This is not necessarily a valuable consequence; spend a few days in
alt.business.misc and biz.general and alt.make.money.fast (yes, this
is a real group!).
> (most of which will be "newbies" who are
> basically technically illiterate) to profit along with the "olbies"
> (technically literate).
A lot of the 'oldbies' are also 'technically illiterate'... but most
have learned the basics of netiquette and whatever else they need to
know to get their net related tasks done. Like how much 'tech literacy'
does it take to use a Gopher or Web client?
> Shortsighted attempts to hord potential profits willould have the same
I don't see how you hoard potential profits, and I don't see anyone
hoarding current profits.
> Few automobiles (In the cyberworld the equivilant of teleputers) would be
...
I haven't got a clue what you're really talking about; I think your
analogy got stretched too thin.
> It behoves all of us who seek to further commerce on the Internet to keep
> the Internet as uncensored and unrestrained and as broadly available at
Consider that it's possible for many companies to do their Internet business
in whats that neither 'censorship' nor restraint might be relevant; indeed,
that might never be visible in the 'public Internet view' (public mail lists
and newsgroups, public web sites, etc). And if you include freedom to
spam under 'unrestrained' I don't feel at all behooved in that direction.
> ... It may mean a
> loss of control
Compared to what we have today, what control?
> .... And all
> of us, the entire nation and the world, will be more prosperous, and more
> knowledgable, as a result.
Or deluged in Make Money Fast postings, pyramid schemes, random spams,
administrative notes from people trying to get added or removed from
lists, "HI MOMs," etc., bringing back a return to handwritten notes
and more fireside reading. Look what they said television would
do for us; see what we got.
Best of luck (as long as you don't spam),
DPD
Daniel Dern (ddern@world.std.com) Internet analyst, writer, pundit & gadfly
(617) 969-7947 FAX: (617) 969-7949 Snail: PO Box 309 Newton Centre MA 02159
Author, The Internet Guide For New Users (McGraw-Hill, 1993) - info & stuff at
URL=gopher://gopher.dern.com:2200 (a.k.a. "Dern" area on gopher.internet.com)