Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:11:31 -0400
To: psn@csf.colorado.edu
From: akrhodes@knet.flemingc.on.ca (Adrian Rhodes)
Subject: First of Five...Self-moderation...
I can recall reading somewhere...I can't remember who said it but the quote is:

"The answer to the problem of technology is....

.....more technology."

I rather have a feeling it was a feminist critic who said it, regarding
abortion, but I am not sure.  I *will* be the first to admit I run on at the
keyboard, but I have not posted much of late as I have been too busy.

Working on a paper regarding the technological control of civil society, as
luck would have it.  Thanks, you just gave me some more ammunition.  It is
hardly self-moderation when a computer decides that I have said too much.
It's also a short step from the computer deciding I've said too much to the
computer deciding (On behalf of its *capitalist master* of course) that I
shouldn't be allowed to say anything at all.  So if we have limiting
software, then this means that our "freedom" (I use the term loosely) of
access will have been curtailed at some distant point in the future.  Note
the way I put that.

My point here is that it is hardly self-moderation if a computer's software
and algorithms decide that I cannot say anything more.  And we are seeing
more and more examples of this in our society all the time...just look at
the internet in Ontario Canada, when iStar (Ontario internet provider-
private company) quietly axed access to some of the newsgroups without
telling their subscribers.  People would only be told which groups had been
axed if they asked about it.  So much for democracy on the web.

The corporate result of this action by iStar in July 1996 was that iStar
lost subscribers by the dozens.  Other companies immediately made a pledge
that they would not act with such a heavy handed manner to their
subscribers.  One lives in hope.

The degradation of democracy part the second:  Singapore, a corporatist
state, has now made it illegal to be a private internet provider and not be
registered with the government.  And the government decides for you what you
are going to see or not see.  Period.  The same action has also taken place
in China, where people now must register with the government there as well
if they wish to get on the internet.  Keep in mind that Singapore is (in
theory still at least) a democracy, according to some.

I submit to you that it is only a matter of time before other governments
quietly make the same moves; and then we will not have democracy on the web;
the internet will become the leash for us sociology dogs held by the
capitalist influenced powers-that-be.  They don't like us "communists"?
Quietly pull the plug.  Now, I do agree with self-moderation on the web.
Use your head, there are a lot of people out there.
So don't spam everyone.  But that's everyday (brace yourself) common sense.

Eight hundred people on one e-mail list is an awfully big number, but let's
face it.  Most of us have a life.  I qualified that because I'm really not
too sure whether I do or not. *wink*  But I am further confused by this
mediaton of technology on my freedom of access to this group:

Will someone clarify for me?  Do I have only five opportunities to say
something?  Or do I have five with a time limit, i.e. a month to say five
things?  And then I'm free again the next month?  Or do I only have, like
the nun in the fabled joke of old, a specific time to say things, and then
people will say halleleuja when I decide to leave?

Now I have not written this in any way to be a slam personally against the
maintainers of this site; they are doing a great job.  I think this group is
fantastic and I have made some friends here.  I do understand how thick the
information can get at times and I can see the logic of this move, but: 

Make no mistake you are limiting freedom of speech through access.  

I suggest that instead of complaining about this (As I am doing, sorry), do
not do the kneejerk middle class reaction and leave the list.  Figure out as
I am now, if you have something to say.  And then say it.

And do subvert against the system; I don't think limits on things like the
net are any good anyway.  I made the point that the advertising on the
internet will turn the net into nothing more than a glorified
stimulus/response interactive television set with absolutely no
communicative value at all.  This is not the case with psn; I love being
able to rub shoulders (virtually, at least) with people who are more
experienced and qualified than I and I have learned a tremendous deal, both
about others' sociology and my own.

I think however, we cannot overstate the situation:  this *is* a limit on
freedom of speech through freedom of access; a reflection of the macrocosm
of the web itself.  But I really don't like being told to behave when a)
I've done nothing wrong and b) People know damn well I can regulate myself
appropriately.

I refuse to have machinery decide what my actions will be with regard to my
freedoms.  I won't forget the machinery is there, but I won't ignore it
either.  I agree that there is a delete button on most e-mail systems, so
why can't we decide when we want to use it?  I do understand that there is a
strain on sifting and sorting, but funny enough, I thought that this was
done electronically anway...

Thanks for reading this...

Adrian Rhodes  tiltin' windmills....