rshu@zodiac.UUCP (11/16/87)
This is just a thought that occurred to me. I'm not sure if it's a
good idea. I decided to post it to the net, then sit back and watch
the flames. Maybe some of the replies would help me decide how I
really feel about it.
The idea: Implement ways of selectively censoring offensive posters
The problem is that we wish to avoid censoring people by removing
them from the net and yet we wish to allow newsgroups to determine
the content/tone of their discussions. For example, it's plausible
that a majority of soc.culture.jewish readers would prefer not to
read anti-semitic diatribes (the desire to be open-minded notwithstanding).
Aside: If you keep an open mind, people dump *all* sorts of trash into it.
So, imagine that certain posters are declared persona non grata with
respect to specific news groups. Soc.motss could bar obnoxious homophobes,
soc.culture.jewish could bar anti-semites, etc.
Question: Who would make the decision to bar a poster? On moderated
newsgroups, the moderator already has this as a responsibility.
On unmoderated newsgroups, a quasi-moderator could be designated.
He might be given the power to bar a poster after taking a poll
of the readership. If more than 2/3 of the responses are to
bar the poster, then so be it.
I'm sure some people will claim that this is being close minded. I say
that everybody is close minded to some extent and that we simply don't
have the time or energy to constantly consider alternate viewpoints.
Note: I said "constantly". I think we should consider alternate viewpoints
from time to time.
Even if some people want to hear from/reply to a poster, if a majority
of a newsgroup's readers don't, the first group should take the discussion
elsewhere. I don't know how hard it is create a group temporarily but
one can imagine creating soc.anti-semite. You know, it's like rot13.
If you'd be offended, don't read it! Being on the soc.anti-semite list
wouldn't necessarily mean that you were one, it could mean that you're
willing to hear from and "constructively engage" (Uncle Ronnie's phrase) them.
Implementation: I don't know how this could be done. One way is to have
a set of kill files at each site. Incoming messages from
a barred poster to designated newsgroups would automatically
be junked.
This doesn't solve the problem of the cost of forwarding
the barred postings all over the net. Maybe each site
could somehow refuse to forward barred postings? For
organizational hosts (companies, universities), having a
kill file at the barred poster's host would keep the
barred postings from ever leaving the source host.
This doesn't solve the problem if the barred poster is
the sysadmin of the source machine.
I don't know enough about how the net software works to
know if these implementation ideas are feasible or not.
Maybe someone could enlighten me?
Richard Shu
sechrest@mist.cs.orst.edu (John Sechrest) (11/17/87)
It occurs to me that a good way to provide for "limited censorship" is instead of barring people from a newsgroup, simply put a "rating" on the person's notes (in that newsgroup). You could let each person (as a part of news) vote on each article with different types of Kill commands. The news software could track this and put a rating on the postings of that person based on the number of people who read the whole thing vs the number of people who Kill it or mark it offensive. You could then set up a filter that would only show you notes of rating N or less. This allows those people to post all they want, and those that are offended to never even see them after a while. john Sechrest sechrest@cs.orst.edu
dan@maccs.UUCP (11/19/87)
There is a difference between barring a person because of his/her views and barring a person for abuse of the net (ie. fraud, slander, etc). I don't think that people should be barred (read censored) because his/her views are radically different than mine. I do support however the rights of the *individual* to censor what they read. At the moment we can KILL all articles which have a particular subject. I would suggest that the news reading programs give the reader the ability to kill all articles posted by a particular reader. If someone is expressing views that I do not agree with I can simply walk away and not listen. Do you suggest that the police forcefully remove that person from society? I for one have no desire to see a return to 1984!!! A thought for all those who chose to listen -- Dan Trottier | ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!dan DCSS, McMaster University | ...!utzoo!lsuc!maccs!dan Hamilton Ontario Canada | dan@mcmaster.BITNET L8S-4K1 | Tel: (416) 525-9140 ext:3444