hex@tub.UUCP (07/13/87)
In a discussion about the future of the net, killer!elg writes: > [...], the problem of a > vocal minority making it appear that an action is unpopular when it really > isn't,[...]. > > I think it's time for the Net to graduate from being an anarchy, to being a > democracy. > > [...] The individual reader should lobby his system administrator, who > is paying the bills, rather than mailing "votes" as it is done currently. > [...] > Of course, that also brings > up another problem: enforcement of edicts. > [...] > The only > thing I can think of would be some sort of automated mechanism to > automatically do it for the system administrators... bringing up the > possibility of a net.fascist figuring it out and doing it himself... hmmmm... > it looks like there's no easy solution, after all! > [...] Bad, bad feelings with that. I consider computer networks like the USENET as a big, big chance for a major change in the organisation of society. Society is already changing, driven by technology (this is true even for 3rd world) and by mechanisms of the local and global economics (for example the inherent cycles in capitalistic economy). Unrecognized by many progressive people, technology (especially information technology) is removing some constraints on the movement towards a *free society*, as a collection of open-minded and responsible individuals, as a community where *every* human being can find a place to live and grow ; a society without the need of big, static, often inadequate and highly volatile systems like nuclear attack/defense systems, central energy supplement. Also a society, which isn't so centralized, that it could be taken over by the next Hitler in the right moment. Of course, it could also lead to the opposite (remember 1984 !). One of these constraints is the dominant system of one-to-many communication, which is enforced by factors like high cost of publication, large communication overhead (public media) or limited distribution, slow speed of transmission (conventional mail) which means lack of appropriate media. The media is here ! We use it daily, almost successfull. But we are almost blind for the impacts. The idea of a dynamical evolving, self-ordering system not defined by static laws which are protected by threat of violence is what I consider the theoretic base of *anarchy*. You will say: "But there's nothing protecting the system of pevertion and misuse by ill-minded individuals !" As history shows, this is equally true with rule-based systems, which are "protected" by power forces. They seem to be more stable, there is less *obvious* misuse. But they may be much less usefull than possible too, because of unsatisfied demands raised up by new conditions or not foreseen in the original design. In this case, where change would be appropriate, the powers and forces are blindly defending the old system because it has ruled their minds, too. (It will also be in their interest to keep the status quo.) Their interest is (or will become under corruption of power) in keeping the people dependant, dumb, and manipulatible instead of helping them to become free and responsible individuals. No rule should be made for eternity. If it's protected by powers which can use violence (USENET: excluding someone permanently from the net) instead by a collection of individual decisions (USENET: "flame" or author filters, skipping notes, unsuscribing groups) it will be much longer in effect than adequate. In declaring some disturbing behaviour "bad" and forcing someone out of the system, (in jail or out of the net) all his possible powers for recognizing the flaws of the old rules and developing the new ones is permanently lost ! I mean: WHAT'S WRONG TODAY, CAN BE RIGHT TOMMORROW. LET'S KEEP THAT POSSIBILITY ! So please, please, please don't give away this chance by "upgrading to democracy" ! May be, we need different tools or rules, but let's think, think, think first before we introduce representive or even direct democracy with a net.administration and a net.law protected by a net.police killing people of the net or excluding them from every group except net.prison. DON'T GO THE WAY OF LAW AND ORDER. DON'T GO THE WAY OF CENTRALISED POWER. GO THE WAY OF FREEDOM AND RESPONSABILITY. GO THE WAY OF LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING. Marcus Verwiebe, Western Germany. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BITNET: hex@db0tui6 alias tub.BITNET (preferable since cheap) UUCP: ...!pyramid!tub!hex (or ...!unido!tub!hex from Europe only) or {path to your nearest UUCP-BITNET gateway}!db0tui6!hex --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/17/87)
in article <53200001@tub.UUCP>, hex@tub.UUCP says: >> [...], the problem of a >> vocal minority making it appear that an action is unpopular when it really >> isn't,[...]. >> >> I think it's time for the Net to graduate from being an anarchy, to being a >> democracy. >> >> [...] > > DON'T GO THE WAY OF LAW AND ORDER. > DON'T GO THE WAY OF CENTRALISED POWER. > > GO THE WAY OF FREEDOM AND RESPONSABILITY. > GO THE WAY OF LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING. > > > Marcus Verwiebe, Western Germany. As I recall, the West German USENET is centrally controlled, from a central "country backbone" machine... I've given up on the concept of a net.democracy. But only because freedom, responsibility, love, and understanding don't seem to be in large supply. The backbone makes occasional goofups, but at least these guys have their eyes on their wallets instead of on ideology and fascism... unlike some of the net.saviors that have arisen in recent times (who scream everything from strident anarchism to belligerent "freedom to say anything I want at your expense"). However, I do believe that there is a place for a volunteer Network Flow Enhancement group, because out here in the boonies, it takes almost two weeks for news to travel from the Backbone to here.... the general problem seems to be that the network is strung out into a long linked list at its far edges, instead of as a tree with (possibly) interconnects. The solution is simple -- instead of "foo" calling "bar", have "foo" call "bar"'s news source. Another problem is local machines overloading the local "rib-bone"... for example, a machine pretty near capacity because of the large number of local systems calling it. So what you end up with is that the local systems get their news in a timely fashion, but network flow as a whole suffers, because of the lack of connectivity. The answer, of course, is for you, the local rib site, to require that each local system getting their news from you in turn feeds other local systems, and then using the freed capacity to improve connectivity (by having sites fed by a LD newsfeed, call you directly, and other such things). Finally, there's a heck of a problem with just getting a newsfeed! Some sort of centralized network flow center could maintain a database of what machine feeds which, and thus be able to help the new machine find its proper place in the heirarchy. Since this would merely be a database project, and would not be mandatory control of any sort, I think that it would be fairly palatable. The other problem would be collecting the data. Perhaps the news system could help out there, in a later revision of the news system.... ERic Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg, elg@usl.CSNET
john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) (07/19/87)
> require that each local system getting their news from you in turn feeds other > local systems, and then using the freed capacity to improve connectivity (by I don't know about making it mandatory but I think it should be considered an obligation by those receiving a feed to pass it on unless they have a very good reason not to. If A feeds B and B refuses to feed C then A should feed C rather than B unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. john
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/23/87)
in article <145@bby-bc.UUCP>, john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) says: > >> require that each local system getting their news from you in turn feeds other >> local systems, and then using the freed capacity to improve connectivity (by > > I don't know about making it mandatory but I think it should be considered > an obligation by those receiving a feed to pass it on unless they have a very > good reason not to. If A feeds B and B refuses to feed C then A should feed > C rather than B unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. > john Exactly. If you are the system adminstrator of a system, "A", feeding system "B", and system "C" comes to you asking you for a newsfeed (and you're nearing capacity, e.g. a small machine with only a few modems), if "B" won't feed "C", well, you can feed "C", and since "B" doesn't seem to want your newsfeed, you can just drop "B" to free up capacity.... they musta not wanted netnews enuf, huh? Sometimes there ARE compelling reasons, such as companies paranoid about "hackers" that refuse to put dial-in modems on their computers... but in today's world of the $3,000 Unix machine (an IBM AT clone with 80 meg hard drive running Microport Sys V).... maybe the people at "B" who are interested in getting the news, should get their own machine and forget about getting their news fix from Company "B" (or, what I'd do, find a better employer!). -- Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET Ron Headrest: A President {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg for the Electronic Age! Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (08/07/87)
In article <1178@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >Exactly. If you are the system adminstrator of a system, "A", feeding system >"B", and system "C" comes to you asking you for a newsfeed (and you're nearing >capacity, e.g. a small machine with only a few modems), if "B" won't feed "C", >well, you can feed "C", and since "B" doesn't seem to want your newsfeed, you >can just drop "B" to free up capacity.... they musta not wanted netnews enuf, First see if you can get C to feed B as a leaf. -- (C) Copyright 1987 Laura Creighton - you may redistribute only if your recipients may. ``One must pay dearly for immortality: one has to die several times while alive.'' -- Nietzsche Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura