censorship and marketing image problems [was Re: Blacklist] censorship and marketing image problems [was Re: Blacklist]On Mon, 19 Dec 94 ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern) said:
>Quato <heimlich@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> said:
>
>> 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 concur... partially through disdain for those who ignored the net until
now, partially an attempt to convince people that they cannot figure out
the net and need the help of the 'olbies', etc... the usual combination of
self-serving motivations. Heck, they/we are all human after all. So one
point to this side.
>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.
But those who are passed over, or rendered impotent, can get frustrated in
quick time... the competition can turn into a 'military' conflict (resolved
with technology rather than with 'diplomacy' or social pressure) rather
quickly. So we get spamming scripts vs. cancelbots, caller-ID vs.
blackfaxes, etc. Also witness the encryption 'issue' which was effectively
fought out with the potent weapons of unbreakable public key
encryption/PGP, anonymous FTP, offshore anon servers, etc... and defeated
the best efforts of the US gov't... It is a question of personal values
whose side one is rooting for to win... so yes the real power is wielded by
those who understand the technology, you need at least one or two of these
on your side in order to win. One point to this side.
>>And yes; This, along with other excuses, will
>> be used to institute political censorship as well.
>> Or maybe just those other excuses.
See above. Same weapons, same fight. I fail to see how it is possible to
institute political censorship, or stop spam for that matter, on the net as
it is constructed, without gaining widespread co-operation from a great
many entities in many countries and constituencies... national sovereignty
seems to be very much at a low ebb in terms of political effectiveness
these days, what with GATT-standardized economies, UN-standardized foreign
policies (with a nod to that lone crusader Jesse Helms of course! ;-]),
IMF-standardized banking, and the Net and Web everywhere... seems like real
power rests with the international standardization bodies... who even
decide what money is worth when you get right down to it. These are
diffuse enough to be hard for anyone to control. Anyway this is way off
the topic of internet blacklisting, but dead on topic of "what is the
environment in which marketers operate?"
>> 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
I agree but think the best way to do this is by spreading the technology
(that cannot be uninvented) around... in other words, don't bother trying
to socially attack spammers, just distribute cancelbots or keep blacklists
(as long as the blacklist keepers don't become arbiters of offensive
behavior which they may) or put better kill/filter technology in
Webreaders, etc... really not a hard thing.
Consider this: at SOME point in the future the technology to do any level
of filtering WILL be everywhere and WILL be mastered as a matter of course
by all users of the Web, and possibly by the sites that comprise the Web.
If we want to keep filtering at the user rather than server level, then get
educated:
1. Stop complaining about 'noise' in newsgroups, just kill the thread or
else bozo-filter the poster. Don't encourage censorship in newsgroups or
non- valued-added moderation (a good moderator, like Peter Neumann or Brad
Templeton or Bob Jacobson, is really an editor and a very active
contributor). If you really can't tell what's going on for the noise,
suggest a moderated group along the mandate lines you think appropriate...
2. Set up your own news filters (with whatever technology) to dig out stuff
you think is interesting... watch your own habits, keywords you always
notice, etc... you will be surprised to see just how simple your search
habits are... at least most of them... and you will leave more time for
sophisticated search
3. Make an effort to find out what kind of filters and reading habits and
queries are applied by your customers, and make an active effort to fit
into them and to influence them... in other words, get more seriously in
the advertising biz.
4. Be absolutely and fully aware of the political ramifications of
solutions that you accept/promote. If you support the institution of
technology to stop spamming, or vigilante efforts by self-described
enforcers, or government enforced restrictions on net traffic, be ready to
accept the consequences. Obviously there are a variety of opinions as to
what these are likely to be, and it is a question of personal values which
political outcome you desire.
So as not to use this forum as a political soapbox, I will distribute my
own opinion of the consequences of accepting various forms of net
censorship to those who request it by private email. Suffice it to say
that I assume that if you want a society where you are free to choose what
to read or view, then you must seek solutions to social problems without
invoking censorship. Any attempt to separate the issue of censoring
advertising from the issue of censoring political or sexual traffic is
simply an attempt to avoid the problem. I believe that this paragraph is
pivotal to my argument above and request(ed) that it remain intact. [to
moderator: if you reject this paragraph as irrelevant to the internet
marketing list, then please reject the entire posting. Thanks.]
>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
Yes, this is 'possible' but it won't always happen...
>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.
..and the cure is worse than the disease, by default. It is up to the
advocates of censorship on the net to prove their case to those of us who
would rather remain absolutely consistent with the principles of freedom of
speech and of the press, which work well everywhere else.
It is impossible to coerce someone into reading something, let alone buy
something, and the net seems well able to defend itself through satire and
other means, which are credible defenses in a society (the net) where no
one can hit each other.
>> ... It may mean a loss of control
>Compared to what we have today, what control?
I reject the need for any centralized control.
>> 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.
I cannot write an effective filter for television, but I would be glad to
write an effective set of filters for "Hi Mom..." "you Nazi..." "...fuck
you..." "...buy now... " "...men loving boys loving men..." "... hot
lesbo action..." "...make money fast..." or anything else that you happen
to find offensive. In the script language of your choice. If you can do
this for TV I'd be impressed. In fact I'd give you a job.
The only thing wrong with TV is that you need a license to broadcast it.
The need for broadcasters to protect the value of existing licenses, and
for governments to satisfy people's seemingly-inherent desire to censor, is
what keeps TV the irrelevant pap that it is.
>Best of luck (as long as you don't spam),
If I did, all you'd have to do is bozo-filter craig@passport.ca and enjoy
the rest of your life.
I believe in the net as a community, and in nonviolent corrective action
such as temporary ostracism as a solution to offense in a community (such
as the many aboriginal societies) where jails etc. are not a viable option
and every person's skills are needed and valued. This was once the case on
the internet, that one was assumed to be a person of value (e.g. email
would be often answered before phone calls, giving those in the community
preferential access to each other even when a neophyte approached a master
with many other responsibilities). I now see that the mere fact of the
size of the net is rendering this 'impractical'. The only question is do
we make it 'practical' again through filtering or via censorship. Both
have their advocates. Make your own choices. I for one am not interested
in 'solutions' which assume that people are bad and must be controlled. I
think I can eat a little Spam once in a while and not die.
If I end up eating a steady diet of Spam, when there are alternatives on
the table, then that would make me an idiot, wouldn't it ? Should the
world's information infrastructure be built on the assumption that we are
idiots, as the world's television broadcasting system is ? I think not.
>DPD
>Daniel Dern (ddern@world.std.com) Internet analyst, writer, pundit &
-- Craig Hubley Business that relies on knowledge Craig Hubley & Associates need systems that exploit the Web craig@passport.ca 416-778-6136 416-778-1965 FAX