10 Oct 96 13:55:43 GMT+1 From: "FASENFEST.DAVID" Organization: Univ. Hamburg, Dep. of Social Sc. To: PSN@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:53:36 GMT+1 Subject: rights, speech, ideas More on limits and its aftermath: Several posters object to the limit idea on the grounds that it supresses freedom of speech...others that they might miss posts from their favorite contributors...others that technical controls cannot take the place of thoughtful moderation...others that we are allowing machines to do our work...and once again we are reminded we have a delete key. One person even wondered if PSN could split into a document section and a discussion section so that person could pull down information only and skip the discussion! Several support the limit idea for reasons which include that it may provide greater room for participation, limit the flow of pure information which will perhaps stimulate discussions, induce some to be more judicious concerning what they post, and in the end point out that being limited to 5-7% of the total flow of messages is not so onerous a limitation especially when this is not applied in the course of a thread or discussion on the list. I am a bit baffled by all those who feel they will be missing something (as poster or receiver) since no one seems to think about going to the CAFE for their uninterrupted flow of messages...is it somehow bad unless they can expound in all outlets less someone miss their missive? Bill Bogard points out that the real issue (and rightly) is quality not quantity...but it is quantity that drives out quality on some level, and it is a desire to get people to think about what they are writing which motivates a system which is out of moderator hands (and as an aside, the discussion of how to get 'quality' is going to be even more problemmatic than quantity of posts). And Susan Palmer tells us she agrees that the idea is draconian, but then tells us she unsubbed because one person drowned the discussion on the Bell Curve (and ironically, that would still occur if that person's ideas were central to the thread under this scheme!). She can get her favorite posts (plus thousands of others we do not reject) on the CAFE. Steve Rosenthal has provided several points in the past which warrant discussion, and none have been picked up by others (his most recent one of family values in the midst of the single most significant shift in the social and political economy of our society is but the latest example). And Richard Ratcliff has argued that not only should we have limits, but people should also limit how much they write (I am now in violation of this!). Perhaps I am a dinosaur, but I feel the notion of 'free speech' as some propose on this list a luxury if that means unfiltered flows of information. I would rather see limits which require a form of self-censorship and selectivity rather one in which the moderator gets to decide. And I do not want to see some things on this list if there are other outlets (for example, I don't think anyone subscribing here would agree that we should see hundreds of posts a day advocating the importance of the religious right's pro-life, pro some homophobic and mysogynist view of the family, and anti-labor program in the name of free speech...nor would I want endless sectarian posts cluttering the list--Bob Avakians railroad has long ago left the station!). Finally, unlike a classroom there is no way to see 'hands' raised and no way to quietly encourage the silent to participate...so, yes, limits need to be imposed when an unlimited alternative is offered--and I would rather it be mechanical than trust that someone can sift through posts and decide which amoung them is not worth it! Based on several posts over the last few weeks, and my own ideas, I suggest any or all of the following as topics of importance for this list (or any other topics which may encourage discussion)...and if the energy spent on limits was turned to these it would once again be an exciting list: 1) In the current political season, how is it that the current Democratic agenda has managed to claim 'the middle' when it is to the right of the Rockefeller Republican agenda of the 60s? 2) How has race, family and sexuality been used to alter the basic fabirc of US social welfare, and at the same time build a seeming concensus around the failure of the poor to help themselves and not of society in providing adequate opportunites? 3) How is it that a rhetoric of globalization and competition unsupported by data or evidence has managed to drive wages down locally and globally, and has caused the dismantling of social welfare and the redefinition of citizenship throughout the industrialized world? 4) What is to become of cities and local political economies as national and regional governments increasingly beg their responsibilities by shifting the burden downward...to the detriment of those in most need least able to afford the social costs! And, like most people on this list, I can go on (some might say I have gone on and on already!). It is time to act like a critical intelligencia and not just proclaim our role as one... Humbly (and on my own behalf)...David Fasenfest